UC-NRLF 


The  Secession  Movement  in  the 
United  States  1847-18^2 


BY 
MELVIN  JOHNSON  WHITE 

Professor  of  History  in  the  Tulane  University 
of  Louisiana 


A  Thesis 

Submitted  for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

University  of  Wisconsin 

1910 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Wilmot  Proviso  Agitation,   1847-1848 '.        5 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Oregon,  California,  and  New  Mexico  Issues,  1848-  . 

1849    .    - •       23 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Congressional  Adoption  of  Clay's  Compromise  .    .       42 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  First  Session  of  the  Nashville  Convention  ....       59 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Compromise  Question  Before  the  Country  ....      74 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Secession  Movements  .in.  Georgia  and  in  Mississippi 

1850-1851  .  .•  v.  .    v  .•;'*:-•: 84 

CHAPTER  VII.      /.  ;  !/:•.:•';          :  -\  .  / 

The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,   1850-1852     97 


PREFACE. 

This  little  monograph,  in  substantially  the  form  here  pre 
sented,  was  submitted  as  a  thesis  in  part  fulfillment  for  the 
degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin 
in  1910.  It  grew  out  of  a  seminary  study  of  the  Compromise  of 
1850,  conducted  by  Dr.  U.  B.  Phillips,  now  of  the  University  of 
Michigan,  who  gave  me  many  helpful  suggestions  and  loaned 
me  much  valuable  material  from  his  private  library.  I  also  wish 
to  acknowledge  my  obligations  to  Dr.  F.  J.  Turner,  now  of  Har 
vard  University,  under  whom  it  was  my  great  good  fortune  to 
have  studied  at  Wisconsin ;  to  Dr.  H.  V.  Ames,  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  for  his  time-saving  suggestions  in  regard  to 
where  material  was  to  be  found;  and  to  Dr.  C.  B.  Fish,  of  the 
University  of  Wisconsin.  Needless  to  say,  the  above-mentioned 
scholars  are  in  no  ways  responsible  for  the  faults  of  the  work. 
Others  whom  I  take  this  opportunity  to  thank  are:  Mrs.  P.  P. 
Claxton,  formerly  Miss  Mary  Hannah  Johnson,  Librarian  of  the 
Carnegie  Library,  Nashville,  Tenn. ;  and  Dr.  T.  M.  Owen,  Direc 
tor  of  the  Department  of  Archives  and  History  of  the  State  of 
Alabama,  Montgomery,  Ala.,  for  aid  and  courtesies  extended  me 
while  in  their  cities.  While  engaged  in  collecting  the  source 
material  upon  which  this  study  is  based,  Mrs.  White  accom 
panied  me  to  libraries  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  and  ren 
dered  invaluable  aid  by  copying  manuscripts  and  other  matter. 

MELVIN  JOHNSON  WHITE. 


34094! 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  WILMOT  PROVISO  AGITATION,  1847-1848. 

The  presidential  campaign  of  1844  marked  the  beginning  of 
the  last  stage  in  the  long  slavery  struggle  in  the  United  States. 
It  indicated  that  the  South,  driven  to  a  defense  of  the  institution 
of  negro  slavery  by  the  rapid  growth  of  Abolition  sentiment  at 
the  North,  had  resolved  upon  securing  full  control  of  the  National 
Government.1  The  Democratic  party  was  the  chosen  instrument 
by  means  of  which  this  purpose  was  to  be  accomplished.  Whipped 
into  line  by  its  aggressive  Southern  wing,  it  committed  itself  to 
the  acquisition  of  new  territory,  which  the  South  planned  to 
create  into  additional  slave  States,  with  the  object  of  acquiring 
control  in  Congress,  without  which  it  could  not  believe  its  favorite 
institution  safe.  Early  progress  in  this  direction  gave  promise 
of  ultimate  success.  Texas  was  annexed  to  the  Union  as  a  slave 
State  in  1845.  During  May  of  the  following  year  war  was  de 
clared  against  the  comparatively  weak  Republic  of  Mexico.  Up 
to  this  time  the  anti-slavery  forces,  taken  by  surprise  and  off  their 
guard,  had  nothing  more  serious  than  written  and  verbal  opposi 
tion,  upon  the  part  of  isolated  individuals,  to  oppose  to  the  pro- 
slavery  program.  David  Wilrnot,  a  Pennsylvania  Democrat, 
pointed  out  the  way  of  attack,  and  paved  the  way  for  a  concentra 
tion  of  the  energies  of  the  opposition,  when,  in  August,  1846,  he 
introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives  his  famous  Proviso 
for  the  exclusion,  by  an  act  of  Congress,  of  negro  slavery  from 
the  territory  about  to  be  acquired  from  Mexico.  The  sections  at 
once  locked  horns  in  a  struggle  that  precipitated  a  national  crisis 
second  only  to  the  one  of  1860. 

An  act  of  President  Polk's,  during  the  first  session  of  the 
twenty-ninth  Congress,  furnished  the  occasion  for  the  introduc 
tion  of  the  Proviso.  War  with  Mexico  had  hardly  begun  when, 
in  a  special  message  to  Congress,  dated  August  4,  1848,  he  sug 
gested,  since  "a  just  and  honorable  peace,  and  not  conquest"  was 
our  object  in  entering  upon  the  conflict,  the  appropriation  of 
such  a  sum  of  money  as  might  be  considered  sufficient  for  con- 


1.   Ford,    The   Campaign   of    1844,    in    Proc.   Amer.    Antiq.    Soc.,   Vol.    XX,    Pt.    1, 
Page   118. 


eluding  the  honorable  peace  and,  besides,  for  the  purchase  of  such 
territory  as  Mexico  might  be  willing  to  part  with,2  a  proceeding 
upon  his  part  that  greatly  increased  the  activities  of  the  anti- 
slavery  people,  who  saw  in  it  a  confirmation  of  their  contention 
that  the  war  was  purposely  begun  for  the  acquisition  of  more 
slave  territory.  As  an  amendment  to  a  House  bill  calling  for 
the  appropriation  of  two  millions  of  dollars  for  the  purposes 
suggested  by  the  President,  Congressman  Wilmot's  measure  first 
came  before  Congress  and  the  country.3  It  immediately  passed 
the  House,  where  the  Northerners  were  in  a  decided  majority,  by 
a  vote  of  87  to  644,  but  in  the  Senate  it  was  talked  to  death  and 
never  came  to  a  vote  during  that  session.5 

Either  through  failure  to  appreciate  the  seriousness  of  his 
act,  or  through  indifference  towards  the  opposition,  the  President 
persevered,  and  in  his  annual  message,  December  8,  1846,  at  the 
assembling  of  the  members  for  the  second  session  of  the  twenty- 
ninth  Congress,  he  again  called  attention  to  the  matter,  this  time 
strongly  recommending  the  appropriation.6  A  prolonged  debate 
followed  that  brought  out  the  sectional  nature  of  the  question 
in  a  manner  ominous  of  future  trouble.  The  following  extract 
from  a  letter  'A.  H.  Stephens  wrote  to  his  brother  Linton, 
January  5,  1847,  aptly  describes  the  situation:  ("The  North  is 
going  to  stick  the  Wilmot  amendment  to  every  appropriation, 
;md  then  all  the  South  will  vote  against  any  measure  thus  clogged. 
Finally,  a  tremendous  struggle  will  take  place,  and  perhaps  Polk 
in  starting  one  war  may  find  half  a  dozen  on  his  hands.  I  tell 
you  the  prospect  ahead  is  dark,  cloudy,  -ihick,  and  gloomy.  I 
hope  for  the  best,  while  I  fear  the  worst.  "M 

The  transition  from  party  to  sectional  ties,  an  inevitable  out- 
/  come  by  reason  of  the  step  taken  by  the  Southern  Democracy  in 
\  1844,  was  forecasted  in  the  action  of  such  a  Northern  Democrat 
a  Preston  King,  of  New  York,  who  introduced  into  the  House  of 
Representatives  a  two-million  appropriation  bill  with  a  slavery 
clause  attached.  Another  significant  fact,  to  be  in- 


2.   Ri<-har<Knn.    M.-^suges  and   Papers,   Vol.    IV,   pp.   456-7. 

!•>'"•.   'J9  Cong.,    1   Sess.,  p.    1217. 
I.    li.i.l..    ]..    IL'IH. 
l'ii«l.,    p.    1'Jlil. 

8     Ki  h.in!  on,    Messages  and   Papers,   Vol.   IV,   pp.   471-506. 
7.    .Inlmstun   it    I'.ruwne,   A.   H.   Stevens,  p.   218. 


ferred  from  the  proceedings,  was  that  the  older  statesmen  had 
been  left  high  and  dry  by  the  progress  of  events,  and  were  unable 
to  meet  the  changed  conditions;  the  political  leadership  of  the 
country  was  passing  into  the  hands  of  a  younger  generation. 
This  was  illustrated  in  the  action  of  Senator  Berrien,  a  Georgia 
Whig,  who  appealed  to  the  men  from  his  section  to  oppose  all 
additions  of  territory,  for  the  reason  that  slavery  could  not  be 
carried  to  any  portion  of  it,  and  urged  the  necessity  of  keeping 
the  irritating  question  out  of  Congress.  Calhoun,  who  was 
absorbed  in  a  scheme  of  his  own  for  the  settlement  of  the  sectional 
difficulty,8  opposed  the  Mexican  war  for  similar  reasons.  Not  a 
few  members,  from  a  sincere  desire  to  avert  all  danger  to  the 
Union,  busied  themselves  with  schemes  of  compromise.  Benton, 
and  a  few  others,  to  quote  Benton,  "produced  the  laws  and  the 
Constitution  of  Mexico  to  show  that  New  Mexico  and  California 
were  free  from  slavery,  and  argued  that  neither  party  had  any 
thing  to  fear,  or  to  hope — the  free  soil  party  nothing  to  fear, 
because  the  soil  was  now  free,  the  slave  soil  party  nothing  to 
hope,  because  they  could  not  take  a  step  to  make  it  slave  soil, 
having  just  invented  the  dogma  of  'No  power  in  Congress  to 
legislate  upon  slavery  in  the  territories.'  "9 

The  Proviso  never  became  a  law.  It  passed  the  House  in 
the  form  of  a  clause  attached  to  a  two-million  appropriation  bill 
in  February,  1847,  but  it  is  extremely  doubtful  if,  under  any 
circumstances,  it  could  have  commanded  a  sufficient  majority  in 
the  Senate  during  that  session.  The  matter  was  not  put  to  the 
test,  however,  for  while  the  discussion  of  the  measure  was  going 
on  in  the  House,  the  Senate  had  passed  a  bill  of  its  own,  for  the 
appropriation  of  three  million  dollars,  instead  of  two,  and  con 
taining  no  clause  regarding  slavery.  When  taken  up  by  the 
House,  on  March  3,  1847,  Wilmot  added  fresh  fuel  to  the  flame 
by  moving  to  amend  it  by  adding  his  Proviso,  but  his  motion 
failed  by  a  vote  of  102  to  97.  After  considerable  wrangling,  the 
bill  was  passed  in  the  form  in  which  it  came  from  the  Senate. 
The  final  vote  on  the  Proviso  was  decidedly  sectional.  All  of  the 
Northern  Whigs,  including  the  member  from  Delaware,  sup 
ported  the  measure ;  all  members  of  that  party  from  the  Southern 


8.  See  below,   pp.    11-15. 

9.  Benton,  Thirty  Years  View,  Vol.  II,  p.  695. 


States  voted  against  it.  Its  defeat  as  an  amendment  to  the 
"Three  Million"  bill  was  due  to  the  votes  of  Northern  Demo 
crats,10  who,  from  a  sincere  desire  to  restore  peace  and  harmony, 
or  through  inability  to  see  the  real  issue  involved  in  the  struggle, 
cast  their  votes  with  the  South. 

One  matter  that  came  up  during  the  Congressional  struggle 

deserves  more  than  passing  notice.     It  was  the  championship  of 

£he  cause  of  the  domestic  expansion  of  slavery  by  Calhoun.     On 

/February  19,  1847,  he  introduced  a  set  of  resolutions,  in  the 


Senate,  declaring  that  the  territories  were  the  common  property 
of  the  States  composing  the  Union,  and  that  Congress,  as  the 
joint  agent  and  representative  of  the  States,  had  no  right  to  make 
any  law,  or  do  any  act  whatever,  that  should,  directly  or  by  its 
effects,  make  any  discrimination  between  the  States  by  which 
any  of  them  should  be  deprived  of  its  full  and  equal  right  in 
any  territory  acquired,  or  to  be  acquired,  by  the  United  States11 
—  the  old  familiar  doctrine  of  State  Sovereignty  expressed  in  a 
form  suitable  for  the  occasion.  No  action  was  taken  upon  these 
resolutions  ;  it  is  possible  that  Calhoun  introduced  them  only  for 
their  effect  upon  public  opinion  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line.  At  all  events,  the  theory  of  Congressional  power  here  set 
forth  met  with  favor  in  the  Southern  States,  and  it  was  the  chief 
argument  put  forward  by  his  section  during  the  territorial  crisis 
that  followed. 

The  agitation  in  Congress  spread  to  the  country  at  large.  At 
the  North,  the  war  was  denounced  as  a  scheme  of  Southern 
statesmen  to  increase  the  slave  area  of  the  country.  New  England 
opposition  found  expression  in  the  "Bigelow  Papers,"  of  Lowell, 
the  poems  of  Whittier,  and  in  numberless  press  and  pamphlet 
articles  by  authors  of  lesser  fame.  Theodore  Parker,  the  eminent 
Boston  clergyman,  expressed  his  opposition  in  a  speech  at  Fanuel 
Hall,  February  7,  1847.12  A  Whig  meeting,  held  at  Lebanon, 
Ohio,  August  28,  1847,  approved  the  course  of  their  Senator, 
Thomas  Corwin,  who  had  been  active  in  his  opposition  to  the 
Mexican  war,  declared  their  opposition  to  an  improper  inter- 


10.  For   the   debate    and   other   proceedings    relative   to   the    Proviso    struggle    see 
Cong.  Globe,  29  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  360-363,  383-386,  529-548,  Appendix  pp.  177-180, 
342,   518,  406-409. 

11.  Cong.    Globe,    29   Cong.,    2    Sess.,   p.   455. 

12.  Chadwick,   Theodore   Parker,    p.    237. 


ference  with  slavery  where  it  constitutionally  existed,  but  re 
corded  their  opposition  to  its  further  extension.  Ten  Northern 
States,  through  legislative  resolutions,  sanctioned  the  principles 
of  the  Proviso.  Three  of  these  went  beyond  the  principles  em 
bodied  in  the  measure.  New  Hampshire  urged  the  passage  of 
measures  putting  an  end  to  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
for  its  exclusion  from  Oregon,  and  from  such  territory  as  might 
thereafter  belong  to  the  United  States ;  Ohio  requested  her  Con 
gressmen  to  procure  the  passage  of  measures  excluding  slavery 
from  the  Territory  of  Oregon ;  and  Vermont  declared  that  she 
would  not  countenance,  aid,  or  assent  to  the  admission  of  any 
State  whose  Constitution  tolerated  slavery.13  The  issues  here 
mentioned  came  up  to  render  the  situation  the  more  complicated 
at  a  later  period. 

The  intensity  of  Northern  feeling  was  even  more  strongly 
revealed  in  the  repeal  of  the  so-called  Sojourn  Laws — measures 
that  were  originally  passed  by  the  Legislatures  of  the  free  States 
for  the  benefit  of  Southerners,  allowing  them  to  abide  in,  or  to 
pass  through,  those  States  with  their  negro  servants.  By  the 
year  1850,  all  of  the  Northern  States,  with  the  exception  of  Rhode 
Island  and  New  Jersey,  had  done  away  with  all  laws  of  this 
nature.14  Calhoun  considered  that  the  spirit  prompting  such 
acts  was  far  more  dangerous  to  Southern  rights  than  was  the 
spirit  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.15 

In  the  South  the  Proviso  debate  aroused  alarm  and  resent 
ment.  Born  and  bred  in  the  presence  of  the  institution  of  neirro 
slavery,  Southerners  took  its  existence  for  granted,  and  it  is  not 
strange  that  Northern  attacks  upon  the  institution  were  regarded' 
as  attacks  upon  their  civilization.16  Calhoun  had  furnished  them 
with  a  theory  of  governmental  power  that  they  could  use  in  op 
posing  the  purpose  of  the  North,  and  they  were  quick  to  seize  it. 
The  first  Southern  State  to  take  legislative  action  was  Virginia. 
Her  general  Assembly  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions,  March  8, 


13.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXIII,  p.  44. 

14.  See    Clay's   speech    on    the    Compromise    measure,    Cong.    Globe,    31    Cong.,    1 
Sess.,    App.    pp.    115-117.      Clay   stated   that   the   abolitionists    of   Philadelphia    set   the 
slaves  of  Langdon  Cheves,   of  South  Carolina,   free  on  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,   while 
that  gentleman   was   in  the   city   during  the   Mexican    war.      The   case  was   carried   to 
the  State  Supreme  Court,  where  it  was  argued  for  days. 

15.  See  his  letter  to  an  Alabama  legislator  in  Benton,  Thirty  Years'   View,  Vol. 
II,   p.    698. 

16.  Ingle,SouthernSidelights,p.303. 

9 


. 

1847,  holding  that  the  Federal  government  had  no  control  over 
the  institution  of  slavery,  and  that  in  taking  any  such  control  it 
exceeded  its  legitimate  functions  by  destroying  the  internal  or 
ganization  of  the  sovereignties  which  created  it.  The  second  and 
third  of  the  series  expressed,  in  substance,  the  theory  of  Con 
gressional  power  as  set  forth  by  Calhoun  in  his  Senate  resolutions 
of  the  month  before.  Should  the  issue  be  forced  upon  the  coun 
try  by  the  adoption  of  the  Proviso,  one  of  the  later  resolutions 
declared:  "the  people  of  Virginia  can  have  no  difficulty  in 
choosing  between  the  alternatives  of  abject  submission  to  aggres 
sion  and  outrage  on  the  one  hand,  or  determined  resistance  on 
the  other,  at  all  hazards  and  to  the  last  extremity.  "17  These  reso 
lutions,  which  strongly  suggest  Calhoun  influence,  were  received 
with  general  approval  in  the  South,  and  they  served  as  a  model 
for  those  adopted  by  other  State  Legislatures  in  that  section. 
Provision  was  made  for  the  Governor  to  transmit  copies  of  the 
proceedings  to  the  executives  of  the  other  States  in  the  Union. 
Upon  receiving  his  copy,  Governor  Brown,  of  Mississippi,  wrote 
in  acknowledgement  that  he  would  lay  the  measure  before  the 
Legislature  of  Mississippi,  wrote  in  acknowledgement  that  he 
would  lay  the  measure  before  the  Legislature  of  Mississippi  when 
it  met,  which  would  not  be  until  January,  1848,  but  it  afforded 
him  great  pleasure  to  say  in  advance  that  the  action  of  Virginia 
would  meet  with  the  hearty  approval  of  both  political  parties  in 
his  State.18  The  Legislature  of  Alabama  indorsed  the  action  of 
the  Virginia  Legislature;19  the  Democratic  State  conventions  in 
Alabama  and  Georgia  concurred  ;20  and,  besides,  the  resolutions 
were  approved  at  many  public  meetings  held  in  different  parts 
of  the  South.21 

"While  opposition  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  general  in 
the  South,  the  feeling  of  outrage  was  strongest  in  South 
Carolina.  Public  meetings  were  held  in  different  parts 
of  the  commonwealth  to  denounce  the  measure.  On 
March  9,  1847,  the  citizens  of  Charleston  held  a  meeting  and 
adopted  resolutions  condemning  its  principle;  declaring  the 


17.  Acts    of   Virginia,    1846-1847,    pp.    236-237. 

18.  Niles  Register,  Vol.   LXXII,  p.   178. 

19.  Acts  of  Alabama,    1847-1848,  pp.   450-451. 

20.  Niles  Register,  Vol.   LXXII,   pp.   179,   293. 

21.  Rhodes,    United   States,   Vol.    1,   pp.    105-106. 

10 


question  paramount  to  all  party  considerations;  adopting  the 
Virginia  resolutions;  and  expressing  pride  and  pleasure  in  the 
able  and  dignified  conduct  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  defense  of  the 
rights  of  the  South  and  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution.  Cal 
houn  was  present  and  addressed  the  gathering.22  On  October  4, 
1847,  a  similar  meeting  was  held  in  the  court  house  of  Barnwell 
district.  Resolutions  to  the  number  of  eleven  were  adopted, 
which,  besides  covering  matters  taken  up  at  the  Charleston 
meeting,  approved  a  plan  to  establish  at  Washington  a  news 
paper  for  the  defense  "of  those  guarantees  which  the  Constitu 
tion  secures  to  the  slave  holding  States ; '  '23  declared  the  adoption 
of  anti-slavery  resolutions  by  the  Northern  States  to  be  violations 
of  the  Constitution ;  and  recommended  that  the  Legislature  in 
struct  their  delegates  in  Congress  to  return  to  their  constituents 
should  the  Wilmot  Proviso  pass  that  body.24 

In  the  same  month  General  Waddy  Thompson,  a  man  of 
strong  Union  views,  addressed  the  citizens  of  Greenville  County, 
the  pronounced  Union  center  of  South  Carolina.  He  made  a 
speech  strongly  condemning  the  Proviso,  and  in  it  declared  that 
he  yielded  to  no  man  in  a  sincere  and  rational  attachment  to  the 
Union.  As  for  the  government,  it  "should  not  be  changed  for 
slight  and  trancient  causes ;  but  when  the  great  end  of  the  insti 
tution  is  defeated,  and  all  hope  of  remedy  is  gone,  and  the  governX 
ment  is  only  felt  in  its  insults  and  its  wrongs,  it  is  not  only  aj 
right,  but  the  most  sacred  of  human  duties  to  abolish  it. ' '  Should' 
the  principle  contained  in  the  Proviso  be  asserted  by  an  act  of 
Congress,  he  was  ready  to  abolish  the  Union.25  In  the  face  of  the 
strong  popular  condemnation  of  the  measure,  even  the  moderate 
men  of  the  South  were  taking  action  in  close  accord  with  Cal 
houn  's  views  on  the  slavery  issue. 

Attention  has  previously  been  called  to  the  Calhoun  theory 
that  Congress  had  no  power  to  pass  acts  depriving  any  State  of 
the  Union  of  its  equal  rights  in  the  Territories.  In  his  speech 
delivered  before  the  citizens  of  Charleston,  March  9,  1847,  he  set 
forth  the  political  and  economic  situation  of  the  South  and  out 
lined  a  general  program  for  Southern  action.  In  this  speech  he 

22.  Niles   Register,    Vol.    LXXII,    p.    39. 

23.  This  paper,  The  Southern  Press,  was  later  established.     See  p.  61. 

24.  Niles  Register,   Vol.   LXXIII,   p.    127. 

25.  Greenville  Mountaineer,   Oct.   15,   1847. 

II 


said  that  he  fully  concurred  in  the  address  of  the  committee  and 
in  the  resolutions  accompanying  it.  Then  followed  a  comparison 
of  the  political  strength  of  the  two  sections  in  Congress;  the 
conclusion  drawn  from  which  was  that  the  non-slaveholding 
States  had  mere  power  of  numbers.  The  admission  of  the  free 
States  of  Iowa  and  Wisconsin  would  give  the  North  a  majority 
of  four  in  the  Senate,  which  had  previously  been  the  Southern 
shield  against  attacks  upon  the  institution  of  slavery.  The  loss 
of  control  over  the  Senate  would  put  the  South  in  a  minority  in 
all  departments  of  the  government.  It  was  fortunate  that  the 
mere  power  of  numbers  was  not  the  sole  element  of  power  under 
our  system  of  government.  The  South  had  the  Constitution  upon 
its  side.  As  to  what  that  would  avail  them,  he  stated  that  already 
there  were  many  enlightened  and  patriotic  men  in  the  Northern 
States  and  "the  effect  of  the  discussion  will  not  improbably 
greatly  increase  their  number,  and,  induce  a  still  greater  number 
to  hesitate,  and  abate  somewhat  in  their  confidence  in  former 
opinions,  and  prepare  the  way  to  give  full  effect  to  another  ad 
vantage  which  we  possess." 

Since  the  Northern  crusade  against  slavery  did  not  spring 
from  hostility  of  interests,  the  advantage  spoken  of  was  to  "an 
nihilate  the  products  of  their  labor — strike  from  the  list  the 
three  great  articles,  which  are  almost  exclusively  the  products 
of  their  labor— cotton,  rice,  and  tobacco,  and  what  would  become 
of  the  great  shipping,  navigating,  commercial,  and  manufactur 
ing  interests  of  the  non-slaveholding  States?  What  of  their 
Lowells  and  Walthams;  their  New  York  and  Boston,  and  other 
manufacturing  and  commercial  cities?  What,  to  enlarge  the 
question,  would  become  of  the  exports  and  imports  of  the  Union 
itself ;  its  shipping  and  tonnage,  its  immense  revenue,  in  the  dis 
bursements  of  which  millions  in  those  States,  directly  or  indi 
rectly,  Ive  and  prosper?" 

Then  in  lucid  language  followed  his  conception  of  the  anti- 
si  ; i very  movement  at  the  North.  To  account  for  it  he  considered 
it  necessary  to  explain  the  views  of  the  people  in  that  section. 
There  were  four  classes  of  people  there:  first,  Abolitionists 
proper,  about  five  per  cent  of  the  total  population ;  second,  about 
seven-tenths  of  the  whole  body  of  citizens,  who,  while  regarding 
slavery  ;is  n  sin,  preferred  to  put  down  the  institution  in  a  con- 

12 


stitutional  manner ;  third,  a  very  small  class  that  viewed  slavery 
very  much  after  the  Southern  fashion ;  and  fourth,  the  political 
leaders  who  had  no  convictions  either  way  but  who  were  ready 
to  take  either  side  that  promised  to  further  their  political  inter 
ests.  In  the  nicely  balanced  situation  of  the  parties,  the  Abo 
litionists  held  the  balance  of  power,  and  the  leaders  of  both 
great  parties  had  sought  their  support.  Since  both  great  parties 
at  the  North  had  united  against  Southern  interests,  it  was  time 
for  both  great  parties  at  the  South  to  unite  in  opposition.  Their 
object  was  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  if  it  could  be  done  con 
sistently  with  their  rights  and  equality  with  the  other  States.26 

In  the  Charleston  speech,  just  considered,  we  have  seen  that 
Calhoun  advocated  an  attitude  of  resistance  on  the  part  of  the 
South  without  setting  forth  any  definite  constructive  plans. 
From  his  after  course  we  conclude  that  he  did  not  consider  that 
the  time  had  come  to  take  the  public  into  his  confidence.  In  a 
letter  to  one  of  his  followers,  an  Alabama  legislator,  written  at 
the  time  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  controversy,27  he  bared  his 
thoughts,  and  we  now  know  what  those  plans  were.  This  legis 
lator  had  evidently  expressed  himself  to  the  effect  that  the  South 
should  court,  rather  than  shun,  the  issue  offered  by  the  measure. 
Calhoun,  in  reply,  wrote  that  he  was  in  favor  of  going  still  far 
ther  and  forcing  the  issue  upon  the  North,  since  the  South  was 
then  relatively  stronger  than  it  would  ever  be  afterwards.  Unless 
they  did  so,  delay  would  prove  dangerous.  Had  the  South,  or 
even  his  own  State,  backed  him  in  1835,  he  would  have  forced 
the  issue  when  the  Abolition  spirit  first  showed  itself. 

In  making  the  issue  it  was  necessary  to  look  far  beyond  the 
Proviso,  which  he  regarded  as  only  one  of  many  acts  of  aggres 
sion,  and,  in  his  opinion,  by  no  means  the  most  dangerous.  From 
his  point  of  view,  the  recent  act  of  Pennsylvania, — and  similar 
laws  of  that  description, — were  far  more  dangerous.28  Any  com 
promise  or  adjustment  would  simply  lull  to  sleep  instead  of  re 
moving  the  danger.  As  to  how  the  issue  could  be  met  without  a 
dissolution  of  the  Union,  he  wrote :  "I  say  without  its  dissolution* 


26.  Calhoun's    Works,    Vol.    IV,    pp.    394  395 ;    Niles    Register,    Vol.    LXXII,    pp. 
72-73.. 

27.  Given   in    Benton,    Thirty   Years'    View,   Vol.    II,    p.    698;    partially   given    in 
Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  200.     The  date  of  this  letter  is  not  given,  neither  is  the 
name  of  the  legislator. 

28.  The  repeal  of  the  Sojourn  laws. 

13 


for,  in  my  opinion,  a  high  and  sacred  regard  for  the  Constitution, 
as  well  as  the  dictates  of  wisdom,  make  it  our  duty  in  this  case, 
as  well  as  in  all  others,  not  to  resort  to,  or  even  to  look  to  that 
extreme  remedy,  until  all  others  have  failed,  and  then  only  in 
defense  of  our  liberty  and  safety. ' ' 

To  his  mind  there  was  but  one  remedy,  and  that  lay  in  retali 
ation,  "by  refusing  to  fulfill  the  stipulations  in  their  favor,  or 
such  as  we  may  select  as  the  most  efficient.  Among  these,  the 
right  of  their  ships  and  commerce  to  enter  and  depart  from  our 
ports."  This  he  would  apply  only  to  sea-going  vessels,  "which 
would  leave  open  the  trade  of  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  to 
New  Orleans  by  river,  and  to  the  other  Southern  cities  by  rail 
road;  and  tend  thereby  to  detach  the  Northwestern  from  the 
Northeastern  States."  He  saw  but  one  practical  difficulty  in  the 
way  and  that  was,  "to  give  it  force,  it  will  require  the  coopera 
tion  of  all  of  the  slave-holding  States  lying  on  the  Atlantic  Gulf. 
Without  that,  it  would  be  ineffective.  To  get  that  is  the  great 
point,  and  for  that  purpose  a  convention  of  the  Southern  States 
is  indispensable.  Let  that  be  called,  and  let  it  adopt  measures  to 
bring  about  the  cooperation,  and  I  would  underwrite  for  the  rest. 
The  non-slaveholding  States  would  be  compelled  to  observe  the 
stipulations  of  the  Constitution  in  our  favor,  or  abandon  their 
trade  with  us,  or  to  take  measures  to  coerce  us,  which  would 
throw  on  them  the  responsibility  of  dissolving  the  Union.  Which 
they  would  choose,  I  do  not  think  doubtful.  Their  unbounded 
avarice  would,  in  the  end,  control  them.  Let  a  convention  be 
called — let  it  recommend  to  the  slave-holding  States  to  take  the 
course  advised,  giving,  say  one  year's  notice  before  the  acts  of 
the  several  States  should  go  into  effect,  and  the  issue  would  fairly 
be  made  up,  and  our  safety  and  triumph  certain." 

This,  then,  briefly  stated,  was  Calhoun's  scheme:  to  force  the 
issue  with  the  North  in  order  to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  tfie 
slavery  question.  In  his  Alabama  letter,  above  quoted,  he  did  not 
mention  the  exact  nature  of  the  settlement  but,  from  his  famous 
speech  on  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  March  4,  I860,29 
we  conclude  that  he  had  in  mind  an  amendment  to  the  Consti 
tution.  The  plan  was  the  result  of  long  and  deep  reflection  upon 
liis  part,  and  for  several  years  he  had  awaited  a  favorable  oppor- 


29.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,   1  Sess.,  App.  pp.   115-127. 

14 


tunity  for  its  proposal.  We  shall  see  that  he  succeeded  in  bring 
ing  about  a  convention  of  the  Southern  States,  but  a  detailed 
account  of  its  origin,  purpose  and  proceedings  is  left  for  a  later 
chapter.30 

The  Wilmot  Proviso  in  its  relation  to  the  presidential  cam 
paign  of  1848  is  next  to  be  considered,  and  the  Democratic  sit 
uation  shall  first  claim  our  attention.  There  were  three  who 
more  or  less  openly  aspired  to  the  honor  of  becoming  the  stand 
ard  bearer,  and  one  possibility :  James  Buchanan,  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  who  had  entertained  hopes  of  some  day  gaining  the  office 
from  the  time  of  his  entry  into  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
1821  ;31  George  M.  Dallas,  of  Pennsylvania,  then  Vice-President ; 
and  Lewis  Cass,  of  Michigan.  Levi  Woodbury,  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  a  justice  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  was  re 
garded  as  a  possibility.  By  reason  of  the  strained  sectional  sit 
uation  it  was  clear  that  no  man  who  openly  opposed  the  extension 
of  slavery  could  hope  for  the  support  of  the  Southern  wing  of 
the  party.  From  a  full  realization  of  all  this  the  three  aspirants 
early  issued  their  studied  bids  for  the  coveted  nomination. 
Buchanan,  in  a  widely-published  letter  of  August  25,  1847,  to 
the  Democrats  of  Berks  County,  Pennsylvania,  recommended 
the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  as 
his  method  of  settling  the  territorial  question.32  Dallas,  in  a 
speech  delivered  at  Pittsburg,  September  18,  1847,  expressed  his 
disapproval  of  the  Proviso  measure,  and  signified  opposition  to 
any  scheme  of  compromise.33  Cass,  in  a  letter  to  A.  0.  P. 
Nicholson,  of  Nashville,  Tennessee,  December  24,  1847,  in  reply 
to  one  received  from  that  gentleman34  asking  him  if  he  was  in 
favor  of  the  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory,  and  what  were  his 
sentiments  with  regard  to  the  Proviso,  put  forth  the  doctrine  of 
' '  Squatter  Sovereignty ' '  as  his  method  of  settling  the  matters  in 
controversy35 — a  doctrine  that  appears  to  have  originated  with 
Dickinson,  of  New  York,  and  not  with  Cass,  as  was  formerly 
supposed.36 


30.  See   Chapter  IV. 

31.  Poore,  Perley's  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  p.   372. 

32.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXI1I,  p.  4. 

33.  Ibid,  p.  79. 

34.  Nashville  Whig,  Jan.   11,   1848. 

35.  Niles   Register,   Vol.   LXXIII,   p.   293;    Smith,    Life   and  Times   of   Cass,   pp. 
607-616. 

36.  Garrison,  Westward  Expansion,  p.  300. 

15 


The  Whigs  had  three  possible  nominees  for  the  presidency: 
Henry  Clay,  General  Scott,  and  General  Taylor;  but  the  bril 
liant  military  record  of  the  latter  created  such  a  strong  popular 
feeling  in  his  favor  that  the  party  leaders  discarded  the  logical 
candidate,  Clay,  and  passed  over  Scott,  in  order  to  make  him 
their  candidate.  Could  they  (the  Northern  Whigs)  afford  not 
to  run  Taylor?  wrote  Washington  Hunt  to  Thurlow  Weed; 
Southern  Whigs,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  were  for  him,  and 
he  was  sure  to  be  a  presidential  candidate,  with  or  without  a 
nomination.37  Public  meetings  in  Trenton,  New  Jersey,  and  in 
New  York,  had  boomed  the  candidacy  of  Taylor  almost  from  the 
outbreak  of  war,  and  after  the  battle  of  Buena  Vista  a  pro 
nounced  movement  in  his  favor  spread  over  the  entire  country.38 
Thurlow  Weed,  in  his  interesting  autobiography,  tells  us  that  he 
first  broke  ground  for  Taylor  by  an  article  in  his  newspaper, 
The  Albany  Evening  Journal,  for  June  18,  1846.  The  circum 
stances  under  which  Weed  claims  he  made  the  selection  were 
somewhat  extraordinary.  While  in  conversation  with  General 
Taylor 's  brother,  on  a  New  York  steamboat,  the  latter  remarked 
that  the  General  had  never  been  interested  in  politics,  but  that  he 
admired  Clay,  hated  Jackson,  and  could  not  be  induced  to  wear 
a  soat  of  foreign  manufacture.  This  convinced  Weed  that  the 
General  was  a  sound  enough  Whig  to  run  for  the  Presidency.39 

For  the  next  act  in  the  political  drama  we  must  look  to  the 
State  of  Alabama,  where  a  leader  for  the  South,  since  Calhoun 
was  absorbed  in  his  own  plans,  offered  himself  in  the  person  of 
William  Lowndes  Yancey.  Yancey  was  born  in  Warren  County, 
Georgia,  August  10,  1814.40  Like  Calhoun,  Yancey  had  received 
a  part  of  his  education  at  the  North,  having  attended  Williams 
College  for  a  time.  Both  became  leaders  in  the  movement  in 
opposition  to  that  section.  After  his  return  to  the  South,  Yancey 
lived  for  a  time  in  Greenville  County,  South  Carolina,  where  he 
edited  a  Union  newspaper.  B.  F.  Perry,  who  was  his  law  asso 
ciate,  thus  writes  of  him  at  this  time:  "He  was  then  a  very 
strong  Union  man,  and  dealt  out  to  the  nullifiers  and  secession 
ists  some  terrible  blows,  for  their  disunion  proclivities.  Little 


:;7.    I'.arnes,   Memoir  of  Weed,  p.   165. 

38.  Nilcs   Register,    Vol.    LXXII,  pp.  97,    112,   128,   294,   334. 

39.  Autobiography  of  Weed,  pp.  570-583. 

40.  Du   Bose,   Life  of  Yancey,   pp.   32-33. 

16 


did  I  then  think  he  was  destined  to  blow  up  the  Union  himself 
in  the  course  of  a  few  years."41 

Just  how  long:  it  was  after  his  removal  to  the  State  of  Ala 
bama  that  his  views  in  regard  to  the  Union  underwent  a  radical 
change  is  not  known,  but  he  first  became  identified  with  the  oppo 
sition  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  principle  at  a  Democratic  State 
convention  held  in  the  city  of  Montgomery,  May  3,  1847.  As  a 
member  of  a  committee  of  six  he  helped  draft  a  set  of  resolu 
tions  that  declared  territory  acquired  by  the  United  States  the 
common  property  of  all  the  States,  and  that  the  general  govern 
ment  had  no  power  to  make  laws  discriminating  between  the 
North  and  the  South — the  substance  of  the  Calhoun  Senate, 
resolutions  of  February  19,  1847.  This  was  the  convention  that 
endorsed  the  Virginia  resolves  of  March  8,  of  that  year. 

At  another  Democratic  State  convention,  held  in  the  same 
city  on  February  14,  of  the  following  year,  Yancey's  attempted 
leadership  became  more  apparent.  While  the  convention  was 
fruitlessly  debating  over  amendments  to  certain  resolutions  that 
had  been  presented,  he  arose,  drew  from  his  pocket  a  preamble 
and  set  of  resolutions  that  he  had  previously  prepared,  and  after 
a  speech  of  forty-five  minutes'  duration  got  them  adopted  with 
out  a  dissenting  vote.4-  This  preamble  and  resolutions  formed 
the  basis  of  the  celebrated  "Alabama  Platform"  of  1848,43  which 
pledged  the  members  of  the  State  Democratic  delegation  to  the 
Democratic  National  Convention  at  Baltimore,  not  to  vote  for 
any  nominees  for  President  or  Vice-President  unless  they 
"openly  and  avowedly"  declared  themselves  opposed  to  pro 
hibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories  by  continuing  the  municipal 


41.  Perry's   Reminiscences,    p.   316. 

42.  Yancey's  Address  to  the  People  of  Alabama,  pp.   9-10,   14-18. 

43.  The    thirteenth    and    fourteenth    resolutions    were    as    follows: 

"13.  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  pledges  itself  to  the  country,  and  its  mem 
bers  pledge  themselves  to  each  other,  under  no  political  necessity  whatever,  to  support 
for  the  offices  of  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  any  person  who 
shall  not  openly  and  avowedly  be  opposed  to  either  of  the  forms  of  excluding  slavery 
from  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  mentioned  in  the  resolutions,  as  being  alike 
in  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  just  and  equal  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the 
slave-holding  States. 

"14.  Resolved,  That  these  resolutions  be  regarded  as  instructions  to  our  dele 
gates  to  the  Baltimore  Convention  to  guide  them  in  their  votes  in  that  body;  and  that 
they  vote  for  no  man  for  President  and  Vice-President  who  will  not  unequivocally 
avow  themselves  to  be  opposed  to  either  of  the  forms  of  restricting  slavery,  which  are 
described  in  these  resolutions."  Yancey's  Address  to  the  People  of  Alabama,  pp.  16- 
17;  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  214. 

17 


laws  of  Mexico,  or  by  act  of  Congress — methods  of  exclusion 
advocated  by  prominent  members  of  the  Democratic  party  at 
the  North.  This  platform  was  approved  by  legislative  resolu 
tions  of  the  State,  which  made  the  instructions  all  the  more  bind 
ing  upon  the  Baltimore  delegates.44  It  was  endorsed  by  Demo 
cratic  State  Conventions  in  Virginia  and  in  Florida.45  Yancey 
had  taken  advanced  ground  in  that  he  sought  to  make  the  na 
tional  Democratic  party  the  defender  of  Southern  rights,  and  for 
Vthe  time  being  he  was  looked  upon  as  the  leader  of  the  South. 

Of  the  political  parties,  the  native  Americans  were  the  first 
to  hold  a  nominating  convention,  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  Sep 
tember,  1847.  No  candidate  was  chosen  for  the  presidency,  but 
the  delegates  recommended  General  Taylor  for  the  office.  Gen 
eral  A.  S.  Dearborn,  of  Massachusetts,  was  nominated  for  Vice- 
President.46  Two  months  later  the  Abolitionists  proper,  who 
went  by  the  name  of  the  Liberty  party,  met  and  chose  John 
P.  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  and  Leicester  King,  of  Ohio,  candi 
dates  for  the  presidency  and  vice-presidency  respectively.47 

On  May  22,  1848,  the  Democratic  National  Convention  met  at 
Baltimore.  On  their  way  to  that  city  the  Alabama  delegation 
stopped  off  at  Washington,  and  while  there  they  held  a  meeting 
in  Yancey 's  hotel  apartments  in  order  to  examine  letters  re 
ceived  from  the  several  candidates,  to  whom  he,  carrying  out 
the  instructions  laid  down  in  his  "Alabama  Platform,"  had 
written  for  statements  regarding  their  stand  on  the  question  of 
slavery  extension.48  General  Cass  replied  by  sending  a  copy  of 
his  Nicholson  letter.  Mr.  Dallas  stated  that  ' '  having,  on  several 
occasions,  scrupulously  abstained  from  any  defense  or  elabora 
tion  of  certain  political  views  long  entertained  and  heretofore 
publicly  expressed,  he  did  not  feel  at  liberty,  just  then,  to  pursue 
a  different  course."  Buchanan  referred  to  his  letter  to  the 
Democrats  of  Berks  County,  Pennsylvania.  Judge  Woodbury 
wrote,  in  effect,  that  his  position  on  the  Supreme  Bench  did  not 
permit  the  expression  of  an  opinion  upon  his  part.49 


44.  Acts  of  Alabama,  1847-1848,  pp.  450-451. 

45.  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  214. 

46.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXIII,  p.  79. 

47.  Ibid,  p.  172. 

48.  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  216. 

49.  Yancey's  Address  to  the  People  of  Alabama,  pp.  28-29. 

18 


One  of  the  first  matters  that  came  before  the  convention 
grew  out  of  a  factional  contest  among  the  New  York  Democrats. 
As  a  result  of  this  contest,  two  full  delegations,  one  made  up  of 
Van  Buren  supporters;  the  other  supporting  Dickinson,  and 
known  respectively  as  "Barnburners"  and  "Hunkers,"  were 
sent  to  the  Baltimore  Convention  from  that  State.  The  conven 
tion,  after  deliberating  upon  the  situation,  decided  to  admit  both 
delegations  and  to  give  to  each  one-half  of  the  votes  to  which 
that  commonwealth  was  entitled.  The  "Hunkers"  agreed  to  this 
arrangement,  but  the  Van  Buren  men  refused,  and  withdrew.50 
Before  proceeding,  the  delegates  adopted  the  two-thirds 
rule,  which  tended  to  put  the  nomination  into  the  hands  of  the 
minority.51 

Yancey  was  chosen  to  represent  the  State  of  Alabama  on  the 
committee  on  resolutions,  and  he  took  an  active  part  in  its  work. 
Convinced  that  the  committee  was  intent  upon  avoiding  all  ex 
pression  of  opinion  on  the  slavery  question,  he  offered  the  fol 
lowing  resolution  as  an  amendment  to  a  resolution  already  be 
fore  the  members:  "Resolved  further,  That  the  doctrine  of 
non-intervention  with  the  rights  of  property  of  any  portion  of 
this  Confederacy,  be  it  in  the  States  or  in  the  Territories,  by  any 
other  than  the  parties  interested  in  the  said  rights,  is  the  true 
Republican  doctrine  recognized  by  this  body" — a  resolution 
strictly  in  line  with  the  principles  of  the  "Alabama  Platform." 
It  was  defeated  in  the  committee  by  a  vote  of  20  to  9.52  A  final 
effort  to  carry  the  resolution  in  the  convention,  where  it  was 
later  presented  in  a  minority  report  signed  by  Yancey,  Com 
mander,  of  South  Carolina,  and  McGehee,  of  Florida,  failed  by 
an  overwhelming  vote  of  216  to  36.  When  this  latter  vote  was 
declared,  Yancey  arose  and,  after  announcing  to  the  convention 
that  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  his  State  he  would  no 
longer  participate  in  their  proceedings,  withdrew  from  the  hall, 
accompanied  by  Wray,  another  delegate  from  Alabama,  The 
other  members  of  the  Alabama  delegation  not  only  chose  to 
ignore  instructions  and  retain  their  seats,  but  Winston,  one  of 


50.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXIV,  p.  325 ;  Greeley  &  Cleveland,  Political  Text-Book 
for  1860,  pp.  16-17. 

51.  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  217. 

52.  Yancey's   Address   to   the   People  of   Alabama,    pp.    48-51;    Du   Bose,    Life   of 
Yancey,  pp.  219-220. 

19 


their  number,  felt  called  upon  to  denounce  the  action  of  the 
withdrawing  members.  ''I  declare  here,"  he  said,- "as  a  repre 
sentative  of  Alabama,  I  do  not  belong  to  the  ultra  set  of  faction- 
ists  at  the  South  who  do  as  much  harm  as  the  ultra  set  of  faction- 
ists  at  the  North,"  and  he  told  the  convention  that  the  Alabama 
men  were  present  not  as  rulers  but  as  delegates.  Preston  King 
assured  the  assemblage  that  Winston  was  the  father  of  the  Ala 
bama  Democracy.53 

Yancey  had  been  beaten  in  his  efforts  to  force  his  leadership 
upon  the  national  Democratic  party;  his  action  was  repudiated 
not  only  by  his  fellow  delegates  at  Baltimore  but  by  the  people 
of  Alabama  as  well.  Winston  and  others  wrote  letters,  denounc 
ing  his  conduct  at  Baltimore,  to  the  press  of  the  State.  Later  on 
Winston  publicly  denounced  him  in  a  speech  delivered  at  Mont 
gomery.54  But  the  tide  of  public  opinion  in  Alabama  had  turned 
against  him  ere  this.  Sober  second  thought  disapproved  of  the 
' '  Alabama  Platform, ' '  after  passions  had  cooled  and  it  was  real 
ized  that  a  young  man's  power  of  oratory  was  responsible  for 
the  advanced  step.  Indeed,  it  seems  that  his  eloquence  was  very 
largely  the  cause  of  the  whole  Alabama  movement.  The  news 
papers  assailed  his  course.55  In  defense  he  issued  an  "Address 
to  the  People  of  Alabama,"56  explaining  his  conduct.  During 
the  campaign  of  1848,  and  for  some  years  afterwards,  he  did  not 
take  any  part  in  national  politics — neither  of  the  great  parties 
wanted  him,  his  biographer  tells  us,  but  in  the  interval  he  de 
voted  his  time  to  study,  and  waited  for  future  events  to  justify 
his  course  of  action.57  He  had  tried  to  lead  his  section  but  he 
was  in  advance  of  the  times  in  1848.  With  the  effort  he  disap 
pears  as  an  active  force  in  the  South  during  our  period,  but  we 
shall  later  have  occasion  to  refer  to  him  in  connection  with  the 
Southern  Rights  movement  in  Alabama,  and  with  local  affairs 
in  that  State. 

The  Baltimore  convention  nominated  Lewis  Cass  for  Presi 
dent  on  the  fourth  ballot,  and  William  Butler,  of  North  Caro- 
lin::.  for  Vice-President  on  the  second/"'8  To  oppose  them,  the 


F53.  Du  Bose,   Life  of  Yancey,  pp.  218-220. 

54.  i:<id,  p.  222. 

55.  Ibid,  p.  215. 

56.  Yancey's  Address  to  the  People  of  Alabama,  pp.  1-78. 

57.  Du  Bose.   VIUH-C   .  in  (iulf  States  Hist.  Mag.,  Vol.  I,  p.  244. 

58.  Stan  wood,   History  of  the  Presidency,  p.  234. 


Whigs,  who  held  their  convention  at  Philadelphia,  June  7,  1848, 
selected  General  Taylor  for  President,  and  Millard  Fillmore,  of 
New  York,  for  Vice-President.r>9  Both  parties  dodged  the  slavery 
question  in  drawing  up  their  platforms. 

There  was  much  opposition  to  the  nomination  of  General 
Taylor,  owing  to  his  not  being  acceptable  to  those  members  of 
the  convention  who  held  extreme  anti-slavery  views.  Accord 
ingly,  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  his  nomination,  Henry  Wilson 
and  other  extremists,  who  had  opposed  his  candidacy,  met  in  the 
convention  hall,  and  took  the  first  steps  in  organizing  a  new 
political  party,  the  Free  Soil  party.  It  was  decided  to  call  a 
convention  to  meet  in  August  in  the  city  of  Buffalo.  A  conven 
tion  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  who  were  opposed  to 
the  further  extension  of  negro  slavery,  having  previously  been 
called  to  meet  ,at  Columbus,  June  20,  1848,  Wilson  informs  us 
that  it  was  decided  to  send  a  delegate  to  persuade  this  gathering 
to  call  the  convention  at  Buffalo.60  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  Ohio 
convention,  under  the  leadership  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  issued 
the  call,  which  was  signed  by  three  thousand  citizens  of  all 
political  parties.61 

The  New  York  supporters  of  Van  Buren,  piqued  at  the  treat 
ment  their  chief  had  received  at  the  hands  of  the  regular  Demo 
cratic  party,  resolved  upon  an  independent  organization  in 
revenge.62  For  the  furtherance  of  their  plan,  the  "Barnburn 
ers"  held  a  convention  at  Utica,  June  22,  1848,  nominated  Van 
Buren  for  President,  and  Henry  Dodge,  of  Wisconsin,  for  Vice- 
President,  and  adopted  an  anti-slavery  platform.63 

The  Ohio  call  offered  an  opportunity  for  the  various  anti- 
slavery  elements  to  combine  and  put  forth  common  candidates, 
with  added  chances  of  success  at  the  ensuing  election.  The  idea 
was  received  with  favor,  and  on  August  9,  1848,  four  hundred 
and  sixty-five  delegates,  representing  eighteen  States,  including 
Delaware,  Virginia,  and  Maryland,  assembled  at  Buffalo.64  Pro 
ceedings  began  with  a  monster  mass  meeting,  that  was  attended 
by  thousands.  Salmon  P.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  was  presiding  officer 

59.  Greeley  &  Cleveland,  Political  Text-Book  for  1860,  p.  15. 

60.  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Vol.  II,  pp.   142-144. 

61.  Addresses  and  Proceedings,  pp.  1-14;  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  316. 

62.  Schurz,  Henry  Clay,  Vol.  II,  p.  311. 

63.  Greeley  &  Cleveland,  Political  Text-Book  for  1860,  pp.  17-18 

64.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXIV,  p.  110;  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  318. 

21 


of  the  convention,  and  it  is  said  that  the  platform  adopted  was 
substantially  drawn  by  him.65  Martin  Van  Buren  was  nomi 
nated  for  President,  the  nomination  being  open  in  consequence 
of  the  withdrawal  of  the  different  candidates  previously  nomi 
nated  by  the  anti-slavery  parties,  and  Henry  Dodge,  the  Utica 
nominee  for  Vice-President,  declining  to  serve,  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  was  chosen  for  Vice-President  by 
acclamation.  The  new  political  party  thus  formed  took  the  name 
of  the  Free  Soil  party.  Its  platform  declared  for  "Free  soil, 
free  speech,  free  labor,  and  free  men,"  which  became  the  party 
motto.66 

The  November  election  was  almost  uneventful.  Considerable 
excitement  was  caused  during  the  earlier  stages  of  the  campaign 
by  Taylor,  upon  whom  party  ties  rested  lightly,  accepting  the 
nomination  of  a  Democratic  meeting  in  South  Carolina,  but 
Weed  was  able  to  allay  the  storm  by  means  of  a  speech  delivered 
at  a  public  meeting  at  Albany,  New  York,  and  the  "Rough  and 
Ready"  letter  from  Taylor,  in  September,  patched  up  a  situa 
tion  that  might  otherwise  have  rendered  his  election  improba 
ble.67  His  being  a  native  of  Louisiana,  and  a  slave  owner, 
commended  him  to  the  South,  and  his  brilliant  military  record 
made  him  popular  at  the  North.  Still,  in  spite  of  his  popularity, 
he  could  not  have  carried  the  election  had  it  not  been  for  the 
defection  in  the  Democratic  party  in  New  York,  which  lost  the 
electoral  vote  of  that  State  for  Cass.68  The  total  electoral  vote 
for  the  country  was :  163  for  Taylor,  127  for  Cass.69 


65.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  pp.  317-318. 

66.  Niles  Register,   Vol.   LXXIV,   p.    110;    Stanwood,    History  of  the  Presidency, 
pp.  239-241;  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  318. 

67.  Barnes,  Memoir  of  Weed,  pp.  169-170. 

68.  Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  Vol.  II,  p.  723. 

69.  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency,  p.  242. 


22 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE   OREGON,  CALIFORNIA,  AND  NEW  MEXICO 

ISSUES,  1848-1849. 


As  a  result  of  the  Northern  failure  to  pass  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  in  the  form  of  an  amendment  to  the  Senate  "Three 
Million"  bill,  the  South  scored  the  first  victory  in  the  last  stage 
of  the  slavery  struggle;  but  neither  the  Northern  opposition  to 
the  further  spread  of  the  institution,  nor  the  Southern  attempts 
to  bring  about  a  final  and  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  chronic 
question,  ended  with  this  disposal  of  Congressman  Wilmot 's 
measure.  The  issue  was  again  raised  when  Congress  took  up 
the  matter  of  providing  the  necessary  governments  for  the 
newly-acquired  territories  of  Oregon,  California,  and  New 
Mexico. 

Oregon,  the  earliest  of  the  new  possessions  to  be  acquired, 
first  claimed  the  attention  of  Congress.  The  troublesome  situa 
tion  that  developed  out  of  the  attempt  to  provide  a  territorial 
government,  for  the  benefit  of  our  citizens  residing  there,  resulted 
from  the  action  of  the  pro-slavery  men.  Southerners  had  no 
reasonable  grounds  to  hope  that  the  institution  of  negro  slavery 
could  ever  exist  in  the  territory ;  they  simply  seized  upon  the 
occasion  offered  them  to  force  a  settlement  with  the  North.  By 
means  of  obstructive  tactics  they  meant  to  prevent  the  organiza 
tion  of  Oregon  until  some  bargain  could  be  driven,  or  some  con 
cession  wrung,  that  would  throw  open  to  them  the  more  desirable 
regions  of  California  and  New  Mexico  to  the  southward.1 

President  Polk  showed  a  strong  desire  to  have  the  territorial 
organization  provided  for  during  his  administration.  In  a  spe 
cial  message  to  Congress,  August  5,  1846, 2  transmitting  a  copy 
of  the  convention  ratified  by  the  United  States  and  England  for 
the  settlement  of  the  Oregon  question,  and  in  his  annual  message 
of  December  8  of  that  year,3  he  called  attention  to  the  necessity 
of  providing  a  territorial  government.  No  action  upon  the  part 


1.  Schurz,  Henry  Clay,  Vol.  II,  p.  302. 

2.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.   IV,   pp.  457-458. 

3.  Ibid,  p.  504. 

23 


of  Congress  resulted,  and  in  his  annual  message  of  December  7, 
1847,4  he  again  called  attention  to  the  matter,  and  expressed 
regrets  that  the  necessary  steps  had  not  been  taken.  On  May  29, 
1848,  the  President  laid  before  Congress  a  memorial  and  papers, 
transmitted  by  the  Governor  and  Legislative  Assembly  of  Ore 
gon, — a  temporary  form  of  government  that  the  people  had  of 
necessity  been  compelled  to  form  for  themselves  in  the  absence 
of  action  by  Congress, — asking  the  aid  and  protection  of  the 
United  States.  The  Indians  of  the  region,  it  was  pointed  out, 
had  recently  "raised  the  war  whoop  and  crimsoned  their  toma 
hawks  in  the  blood  of  their  citizens."  Polk  recommended  that 
laws  be  promptly  passed  establishing  a  territorial  government.5 

Congress  had  not  been  wholly  inactive  in  regard  to  the  mat 
ter,  however.  After  several  futile  attempts  in  the  same  direction, 
the  House,  January  16,  1847,  passed  a  bill  providing  for  a 
territorial  organization  for  Oregon,  and  excluding  slavery  by 
repeating  the  restrictions  of  the  Northwest  Ordinance  of  1787.6 
While  it  was  under  discussion,  Burt,  of  South  Carolina,  offered 
an  amendment  giving  as  a  reason  for  the  exclusion  of  slavery 
the  fact  that  the  region  lay  north  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  of  36°  30',  but  the  North  was  not  to  be  trapped  into  giving 
up  all  of  the  public  domain  south  of  that  line  to  the  slaveholder, 
and  Burk's  amendment  failed  by  a  vote  of  113  to  82.7 

The  House  bill  was  tabled  in  the  Senate.8  The  Congressional 
situation  in  reference  to  it  was  much  the  same  as  that  occasioned 
by  the  consideration  of  the  Proviso  measure.  The  House,  with 
its  strong  majority  of  Northern  men,  could  easily  pass  measures 
for  slavery  exclusion.  The  real  struggle  took  place  in  the  Senate, 
where  the  sections  were  more  evenly  represented.  Debate  was 
long  and  heated,  and  it  indicated  the  Southern  purpose  to  pre 
vent  the  organization  of  Oregon  until  the  question  of  slavery 
extension  into  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico  had  first  been 
settled.  It  was  in  connection  with  this  debate  that  Calhoun, 
according  to  Benton,  first  made  trial  of  his  new  doctrine  of  "no 
power  in  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  territories."9  Ben- 

1.    Kirh.-mlson,   Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  IV,  p.  558. 

5.  Ibid,  pp.  584-586. 

6.  Cong.  Globe,  29  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  198. 

7.  Ibid,  pp.  170,  187. 

8.  Ibid,  p.  571. 

9.  Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  Vol.  II,  p.  711. 

24 


ton  evidently  refers  to  Calhoun's  speech  on  the  Oregon  bill, 
delivered  in  the  Senate,  June  27,  1848.10  A  few  extracts  from 
this  speech  will  make  Calhoun's  contention  clear.  In  speaking 
of  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  territories,  he  said:  "But, 
while  I  deny  .  .  .  that  Congress  possesses  absolute  power  over 
the  territories,  I  by  no  means  deny  that  it  has  any  power  over 
them.  Such  a  denial  would  be  idle  on  any  occasion,  but  much 
more  so  on  this,  when  we  are  engaged  in  constituting  a  terri 
torial  government,  without  an  objection  being  whispered  from 
any  quarter  against  our  right  to  do  so."  This  power  was  de 
rived  from  the  right  to  acquire  territories,  and  it  was  possessed 
by  "this  Government,  as  the  sole  agent  and  representatives  of 
the  United  States — that  is,  the  States  of  the  Union  in  their 
Federal  character."  His  definition  of  governments  was  as  fol 
lows  :  ' '  Governments,  both  Federal  and  State,  are  but  agents,  I 
or,  more  properly,  trustees,  and,  as  such,  possses,  not  absolute, 
but  subordinate  and  limited  powers;  for  all  powers  possessed \ 
by  such  governments  must,  from  their  nature,  be  trust  powers, 
and  subject  to  all  the  restrictions  to  which  that  class  of  powers 
are." 

The  class  of  restrictions  most  directly  related  to  the  subject 
under  discussion  were  "those  imposed  on  the  trustees  by  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  party,  who  constituted  the  trustees 
and  invested  them  with  the  trust  powers  to  be  exercised  for  its 
benefit.    In  this  case  it  is  the  United  States,  that  is,  the  several\ 
States  of  the  Union.     It  was  they  who  constituted  the  Govern-) 
ment  as  their  representative,  or  trustee,  and  intrusted  it  with 
powers  to  be  exercised  for  their  common  and  joint  benefit.     To 
them   in   their   united   character   the   territories   belong,    as   is 
expressly   declared   by   the   Constitution.      They   are  joint   and 
common  owners,  regarded  as  property  or  land;  and  in  thenv 
severally,  reside  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  over  them.     They 
are  as  much  the  territories  of  one  State  as  another — of  Virginia 
as  of  New  York;  of  the  Southern  as  the  Northern  States.  .  .  . 
Add  to  this  the  perfect  equality  of  dignity,  as  well  as  of  rights/, 
which   appertain   to   them   as   members   of   a   common   Federal 
Union  .  .  .  and  it  must  be  manifest  that  Congress,  in  governing 
the   territories,   can   give  no   preference  or   advantage   to   one 


10.   Calhouii's  Works,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  479-512. 

25 


State  over  another,  without  depriving  the  State  or  section 
over  which  the  preference  is  given,  or  from  which  the  advantage 
is  withheld,  of  their  clear  and  unquestionable  right,  and  sub 
verting  the  very  foundation  on  which  the  Union  and  Government 
rest." 

As  to  how  the  question  could  be  settled,  Calhoun  said:  "It 
can,  in  my  opinion,  be  finally  and  permanently  adjusted  but 
one  way, — and  that  is  on  the  high  principles  of  justice  and  the 
Constitution  .  .  .  nor  should  the  North  fear  that,  by  leaving  it 
where  justice  and  the  Constitution  leave  it,  she  should  be  ex 
cluded  from  her  full  share  of  the  territories.  In  my  opinion,  if 
/it  be  left  there,  climate,  soil,  and  other  circumstances  would  fix 
the  line  between  the  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding  States 
in  about  36°  30'.  It  may  zig-zag  a  little,  to  accommodate  itself 
to  circumstances  .  .  .  but  that  would  matter  little,  and  would 
be  more  satisfactory  to  all,  and  tend  less  to  alienation  between 
the  two  great  sections,  than  a  rigid,  straight,  artificial  line, 
prescribed  by  an  act  of  Congress."  This  theory  of  Congressional 
power,  based  on  the  theory  of  State  Sovereignty,  speaks  for 
itself.  Calhoun  would  keep  the  irritating  question  out  of  Con 
gress. 

Matters  with  regard  to  Oregon  had  reached  a  deadlock  when 
the  proposed  meeting  of  the  anti-slavery  people  at  Buffalo, 
August  9,  1848,  frightened  members  of  Congress  and  hastened 
action  upon  their  part.11  The  Senate  acted  with  energy.  A  spe 
cial  committee  of  eight  members,  with  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  as 
chairman,  was  appointed  to  arrange  a  compromise.12  On  July 
27,  1848,  a  bill  reported  by  this  committee  passed  the  Senate.13 
It  provided  for  the  recognition  of  the  provisional  laws  of  Oregon 
until  an  act  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  should  either  allow 
or  prohibit  slavery,  and  it  also  provided  for  the  territorial 
organization  of  California  and  New  Mexico,  withholding  from 
these  Territorial  Legislatures  the  right  to  take  any  action  with 
regard  to  slavery,  but  leaving  the  matter  to  be  settled  by  a  deci 
sion  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  the  House,  this  bill  was  laid  on 
the  table  on  motion  of  A.  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia.14  Stephens 

11.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  319;   Schurz,  Henry  Clay,  Vol.  II,  pp.  312-313. 

12.  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  932. 

13.  Ibid,  p.  1002. 

14.  Ibid,  p.  1007. 

26 


but  acted  in  the  interests  of  his  section,  for,  as  he  later  explained, 
the  bill  was  a  complete  sacrifice  of  Southern  claims,  since  the 
Supreme  Court  would  infallibly  have  to  pronounce  against  the 
claim  that  slavery  was  allowable  solely  by  virtue  of  the  Consti 
tution.15 

The  House  then,  August  2,  passed  a  new  bill  providing  for 
the  territorial  organization  of  Oregon,  excluding  slavery  by 
including  the  restrictions  of  the  Northwest  Ordinance,  as  in  the 
one  of  January,  1847. 16  The  South  made  one  last  effort  to  secure 
more  slave  territory,  when  it  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate,  by 
adding  an  amendment  providing  for  the  extension  of  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific.17  This  the  House  refused 
to  concur  in  by  a  vote  of  121  to  82. 18  After  an  all-night  sitting, 
the  Senate  finally  gave  way,  and  on  Sunday  morning,  August 
13,  passed  the  House  bill.19  President  Polk  promptly  signed  the 
measure,  but  sent  a  special  message,  August  14,  to  explain  that 
he  approved  it  only  because  the  region  lay  north  of  the  proposed 
westward  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line.20 

Congress  had  provided  for  a  territorial  government  for 
Oregon  without  in  any  way  committing  itself  in  a  manner  useful 
to  the  South  in  its  desire  to  carry  the  institution  of  negro  slavery 
into  the  region  ceded  to  the  United  States  by  Mexico.  No  bar 
gain  had  been  driven  with  the  North,  and  no  concession  had  been 
wrung.  California  and  New  Mexico  were  in  the  same  relative 
position  in  respect  to  organization  that  they  were  in  previous 
to  the  consideration  of  Oregon.  As  soon  as  they  had  been  occu 
pied  by  the  military  forces  during  the  war,  temporary  govern 
ments  had  been  set  up,  under  direction  of  the  President,  who 
claimed  authority  to  take  such  action  by  virtue  of  the  power 
that  international  law  confers  upon  a  conqueror.  At  the  same 
time,  Polk  recognized  the  inadequacy  of  military  control,  and 
urged  a  more  permanent  form  of  organization.21  On  July  6, 

15.  Cleveland,  A.  H.  Stephens  in  Public  and  Private,  pp.  334-352. 

16.  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1027. 

17.  Ibid,    p.    1061. 

18.  Ibid,  pp.  1062-1063. 

19.  Ibid,  p.  1078. 

20.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  606-610. 

21.  Ibid,  p.  638. 

27 


1848,  he  transmitted  a  copy  of  the  ratified  treaty  of  Gaudalupe- 
Hidalgo,  and  urged  the  necessity  of  forming  territorial  govern 
ments  for  the  new  possessions.22  In  his  last  annual  message, 
December  5,  1848,  he  urged  the  matter,  and  recommended  that 
the  Missouri  Compromise  line  be  extended  to  the  Pacific,  which 
was  his  method  of  settling  the  slavery  issue.  As  an  alternative, 
however,  he  suggested  that  the  question  relative  to  slavery  might 
be  left  to  the  judiciary23 — thus  giving  evidence  of  a  faith  in 
Supreme  Court  decisions  that  was  not  shared  with  A.  H. 
Stephens,  as  we  have  already  seen.  Yet,  in  spite  of  all  of  his 
efforts,  President  Polk  did  not  succeed  in  settling  the  California 
and  New  Mexico  issues  during  his  administration. 

While  the  discussion  of  the  territorial  situation  was  going 
on,  other  questions  of  a  sectional  nature  arose,  which  made  the 
matter  far  more  complex  and  difficult  of  settlement.  On  July 
10,  1848,  A.  H.  Stephens  offered  a  set  of  resolutions  requesting 
information  from  the  President  as  to  the  western  limits  of  Texas. 
Nine-tenths  of  the  people  of  the  country,  he  said,  had  under 
stood  the  President's  message  of  December,  1846,  to  claim  the 
Rio  Grande  boundary  from  mouth  to  source,  but  General  Kear 
ney,  alleging  authority  from  President  Polk,  had  set  up  a  terri 
torial  government  with  the  capitol  at  Santa  Fe.24  Polk  replied, 
July  24,  that  the  claim  of  Texas  to  the  country  east  of  the  upper 
Rio  Grande  was  well  founded,  but  that  it  had  never  been  reduced 
to  occupancy,  and  that  a  temporary  government  had  been  set  up 
there  because  the  Mexicans  had  been  found  in  actual  posses 
sion.25  This  matter  apparently  attracted  very  little  of  the 
attention  of  Congress  at  the  time,  but  it  was  destined  to  play 
a  prominent  part  in  later  affairs.  Other  developments  in  the 
House  were  regarded  as  of  greater  importance  for  the  time  being. 
On  motion  of  Root,  of  Ohio,  December  13,  1848,  the  committee 
on  the  territories  was  charged  to  bring  in  a  bill,  or  bills,  for  the 
organization  of  California  and  New  Mexico,  with  instructions 
to  prohibit  slavery.26  Upon  the  same  day,  John  G.  Palfrey,  of 


22.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  587-593. 

23.  Ibid,  pp.  639-642. 

24.  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  910. 

25.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  594-600. 
U6.  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  39. 

28 


Massachusetts,  was  refused  permission  to  introduce  a  bill  repeal 
ing  all  legislation  by  Congress  establishing  or  maintaining  slavery 
or  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.27  Gott,  of  New 
York,  succeeded  in  securing  the  adoption  of  a  bill,  December 
21,  instructing  the  committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia  to 
bring  in  a  bill  prohibiting  the  slave  trade  in  the  District.28  The 
opposition,  however,  was  able  to  bring  about  a  reconsideration 
of  the  bill,  on  January  10,  1849,  and  nothing  more  was  heard 
of  it.  While  it  was  being  reconsidered,  Meade,  of  Virginia, 
moved  an  amendment  instructing  the  committee  on  the  District 
to  report  a  bill  to  enable  slave  owners  more  effectually  to  recover 
their  slaves  escaping  from  one  State  to  another.29  It  was  ruled 
out  of  order,  but  its  mere  introduction  was  sufficient  to  make  it 
one  of  the  most  irritating  and  troublesome  questions  of  the  whole 
controversy.  Although  only  the  measure  introduced  by  Root 
was  permanent  in  its  character,  they  were  all,  nevertheless, 
seized  upon  by  the  South  as  grievances,  and  the  various  issues 
thus  raised  were  fought  out  about  the  territorial  question  as  a 
center. 

As  a  result  of  these  events,  there  occurred  at  Washington 
an  affair  that  attracted  great  attention  throughout  the  country, 
and  revealed  the  height  to  which  the  slavery  question  had  risen. 
Members  of  Congress  from  the  Southern  States  held  a  series  of 
evening  meetings  in  the  Senate  chamber.  As  many  as  seventy 
or  eighty  assembled  at  first,  but,  according  to  Benton,  about  one- 
half  attended  to  prevent  mischief  to  the  Union.30  Calhoun  wa^N 
the  leading  spirit,  his  object  being  the  furtherance  of  his  plan  \ 
for  Southern  co-operation.31  The  first  meeting  was  held  upon-^" 
the  evening  of  December  23,  1848,  and  two  subsequent  ones  were 
held  upon  the  evenings  of  January  15,  and  January  22,  1849. 
At  the  first  meeting,  a  special  committee  of  fifteen  was  appointed, 
with  A.  II.  Stephens  chairman.  This  committee  met,  December 
30,  and,  on  motion  of  Calhoun,  a  sub-committee  of  five  was 
appointed  to  prepare  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  South.  At 
the  next  committee  meeting,  January  13,  Calhoun  presented  the 


27.  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  38. 

28.  Ibid,  p.  83. 

29.  Cong.  Globe,  30  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  p.  216. 

30   Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  Vol.  II,  p.  733. 
ol.   See  Chapter  1,  pp.   11-15. 

29 


draft  of  an  address,  which  was  adopted,  after  some  opposition, 
principally  on  the  part  of  Chapman,  of  Maryland. 

At  the  second  general  meeting  of  the  members  it  was  voted 
to  exclude  reporters,  and '  the  proceedings  went  on  in  secret. 
Outside  it  was  reported  that  Calhoun  was  resolved  upon  a  dis 
solution  of  the  Union,  and  Washington  awaited  the  result  of  the 
evening  conference  in  the  greatest  suspense.32  Calhoun 's  address 
was  the  matter  under  consideration.  Southern  Whigs,  who  had 
taken  part  in  the  affair  merely  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  pro 
ceedings,  opposed  it  at  every  step,  and  finally  voted  to  re-commit 
it  to  the  committee  without  instructions.  Their  opposition  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  they  did  not  expect  the  Taylor  administra 
tion,  which  they  had  done  so  much  to  bring  into  power,  would 
permit  any  act  at  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  rebel;33  and 
when  we  consider  that  General  Taylor  was  a  native  of  Louisiana, 
and  an  owner  of  slaves,  their  trust  did  not  appear  ill-founded. 
Clayton,  of  Delaware,  had  actively  opposed  the  measure,  and  A. 
H.  Stephens  tried  to  bring  an  end  to  the  proceedings  by  making 
a  motion  to  adjourn  sine  die.  Upon  the  latter  being  decided  in 
the  negative,  Stephens,  with  Chapmen  and  Eusk,  requested  to  be 
excused  from  serving  longer  on  the  committee  of  fifteen,  which 
request  was  granted.  Others  were  appointed  to  fill  their  places, 
and  the  members  adjourned  to  meet  again  on  the  evening  of 
January  22. 


32.  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  273. 

33.  Robert  Toombs  wrote  to  Governor  Crittenden  of  Kentucky,  January  22,  1849, 
upon  the  evening  of  which  day  the  last  general  meeting  of  the  Southern  members  was 
held,    as   follows:      "We   have   completely   foiled    Calhoun    in    his   miserable    attempt   to 
form  a   Southern  party.      We  found  a  large  number  of  our  friends  would  go   into  the 
wretched  contrivance,  and  then  determined  it  was  best  to  go  in  ourselves  and  control 
the  movement,  if  possible.      We  had  a  regular  flare  up  in  the  last  meeting,  and  at  the 
call   of  Calhoun    I   told  them   that  the   Union  of  the   South  was  neither  possible   nor 
desirable  until  we  were  ready  to  dissolve  the  Union;  that  we  certainly  did  not  intend 
1o  advise  the  people  now  to  look  anywhere  else  than  to  their  own  Government  for  the 
prevention  of  apprehended  evils;  that  we  did  not  expect  an   administration  which  we 
had  brought  into  power  would  do  an  act,  or  permit  an  act  to  be  done,  which  it  would 
be  necessary  to  rebel  at  .   .   .;that  we  intended  to  stand  by  the   Government  until  it 
committed  an  overt  act  of  agression  upon  our  rights,  which  neither  we  nor  the  country 
ever  expected  to  see.     We  then,  by  vote  of  forty-two  to  forty-four,   voted  to  recommit 
his  report   (we  had  before  tried  to  kill  it  directly,  but  failed).     We  hear  that  the  com 
mittee  have   whittled   it  down  to  a   weak  milk-and-water  address  to  the  whole   Union. 
We  are  opposed  to  any  address  whatever,  but  the  Democrats  will  probably  outvote  us 
tonight    and    put    forth    the    one    reported,    but    it    will    have    but    two    or    three    Whig 
names."      Coleman,  Life  of  Crittenden,  Vol.  I,  pp.  335-336. 

30 


At  the  last  general  meeting  of  the  members,  an  address,  pre 
pared  by  a  sub-committee,  of  which  Berrien,  of  Georgia,  a  Whig, 
was  chairman,  was  reported  as  a  substitute  for  the  Calhoun 
measure.34  It  was  an  address  to  all  of  the  people  of  the  country, 
instead  of  merely  to  the  South,  and,  in  place  of  the  Calhoun 
tone  of  challenge,  it  took  the  form  of  an  urgent  appeal  to  the 
patriotism  and  spirit  of  fairness  in  the  North.  By  a  vote  of  42 
to  17,  it  was  decided  to  issue  the  Calhoun  address.  Stephens 
made  a  last  desperate  effort  to  prevent  any  address  being  issued, 
but  the  attempt  ended  in  failure. sr> 

The  address  set  forth  that  "we,  whose  names  are  hereunto 
annexed,  address  you  in  the  discharge  of  what  we  believe  to  be 
a  solemn  duty  on  the  most  important  subject  ever  presented  for 
your  consideration."  Then  follows  an  allusion  to  the  sectional 
conflict  growing  out  of  a  difference  of  feeling  and  opinion  in 
reference  to  the  relation  existing  between  the  European  and 
African  races  in  the  Southern  States.  Purporting  to  give  a 
"clear,  correct,  but  brief  account  of  the  whole  series  of  aggres 
sions  and  encroachments"  on  Southern  rights,  it  outlined  the 
history  of  the  conflict,  mentioned  the  British  experience  with 
emancipation  in  the  West  Indies  as  affording  a  very  faint  pic 
ture  of  the  calamities  emancipation  in  the  United  States  would 
bring  on  the  South,  and  it  declared  that  emancipation  "would 
certainly  take  place  unless  prevented.  The  question,  "What  is 
to  be  done  to  prevent  it  ? "  was  answered  as  follows : 

"We,  then,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  first  and  indispensable 
step,  without  which  everything  may  be,  is  to  be  united  among 
ourselves  on  this  great  and  most  vital  question.  ...  If  you 
become  united,  and  prove  yourselves  in  earnest,  the  North  will 
be  brought  to  a  pause,  and  to  a  calculation  of  consequences ;  and 
that  may  lead  to  a  change  of  measures,  and  to  the  adoption  of 
a  course  of  policy  that  may  quietly  and  peaceably  terminate  this 
long  conflict  between  the  two  sections.  If  it  should  not,  nothing 
would  remain  for  you  but  to  stand  up  immovably  in  defense  of 
rights  involving  all  your  property,  prosperity,  equality,  liberty, 


34.  For  the  Berrien  substitute  see  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXV,  pp.  101-104. 

35.  For  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  these  Southern  meetings  see  Niles  Reg 
ister,    Vol.    LXXIV,   p.    401,    Vol.    LXXV,   pp.    84-88;    Republican   Banner    (Nashville, 
Tenn.)   for  February  7  and  9,   1849.      Authorities  differ  in  regard  to  the  vote  on  the 
Calhoun  address.     Niles  gives  it  as  42  to  17. 

31 


and  safety.  As  the  assailed,  you  would  stand  justified  by  all 
laws,  human  and  divine,  in  repelling  a  blow  so  dangerous,  with 
out  looking  to  consequences,  and  to  resort  to  all  means  necessary 
for  that  purpose.  .  .  .  Entertaining  these  opinions,  we  earnestly 
entreat  you  to  be  united,  and  for  that  purpose  adopt  all  neces 
sary  measures.  Beyond  this,  we  think  it  would  not  be  proper 
to  go  at  present."36 

/  Calhoun 's  object  was  to  unite  the  South  and  prepare  her 
people  to  meet  and  repel  forever  the  aggressions  of  the  North. 
Convinced  that  the  time  had  come  for  them  to  vindicate  their 
rights,  rather  than  yield  an  inch  he  was  prepared  to  take  any 
alternative,  even  if  it  should  be  disunion,  and  he  trusted  that 
such  would  be  the  determination  of  the  South.37  He  was  of  the 
impression  that  the  time  was  near  at  hand  when  the  South 
would  have  to  choose  between  disunion  and  submission ;  in  order 
to  prevent  which  it  was  necessary  "for  the  South  to  present 
with  an  unbroken  front  to  the  North  the  alternative  of  dissolving 
the  partnership  or  of  ceasing  on  their  part  to  violate  our  rights 
and  to  disregard  the  stipulations  of  the  Constitution  in  our 
favor;  and  that  without  delay."  In  order  to  present  such  a 
front,  he  recommended  that  a  Southern  Rights  convention,  about 
to  assemble  in  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  call  a  convention  of 
the  Southern  States.  If  such  a  presentation  should  fail  to  save 
the  Union,  "it  would  afford  prooT  conclusive  that  it  could  not 
be  saved,  and  that  nothing  was  left  us  but  to  save  ourselves," 
wrote  Calhoun.38  Here,  again,  we  are  confronted  with  the  scheme 
of  a  convention  of  the  Southern  States  for  the  purpose  of  bring 
ing  about  united  action  upon  the  part  of  the  slaveholding  sec 
tion.  It  had  been  carefully  nourished  by  Calhoun  ever  since  the 
inception  of  the  struggle  relative  to  slavery  in  the  territories, 
and  to  its  accomplishment  he  bent  every  energy.  It  was  the  one 
absorbing  topic  of  his  mind. 

He  did  rightly  in  looking  to  his  own  State  for  initial  action, 
for  it  was  the  only  Southern  State  sufficiently  permeated  with 
his  own  ideas  to  take  the  step.  "Let  South  Carolina  hold  back 


36.  For  the   address  see  Niles  Register,   Vol.   LXXV,   pp.   84-88;    Benton,    Thirty 
View,  Vol.  II,  p.  734. 

37.  Calhoun    to    Hammond,    February    14,    1849,    Calhoun    Correspondence,    pp. 
762-763. 

88.   Calhoun    to   John    H.    Means   of    South    Carolina,    April    13,    1849;    Ibid,    pp. 
764-766. 

32 


a  little,  until  her  more  slothful  sisters  can  be  equally  well 
instructed  in  their  rights  and  duty  under  the  present  emer 
gency,"  wrote  Hilliard  M.  Judge,  of  Alabama,  to  Calhoun. 
This  delay,  he  explained,  was  not  so  necessary  for  Alabama  as 
for  the  Western  States,  "for,  next  to  South  Carolina,  Alabama 
is  better  prepared  for  resistance  than  any  other  Southern  State. ' ' 
The  southern  part  of  the  State  had  responded  most  emphatically 
to  the  "Southern  Address,"  but  northern  Alabama  was  much 
less  interested;  he  thought  it  would  follow  the  lead  of  the 
southern  portion,  however.  Judge  Goldthwaite  was  arousing 
public  attention  to  the  question  by  charging  the  grand  juries 
in  his  circuit  in  an  able  manner  upon  the  subject — a  method 
said  to  have  a  most  admirable  effect  upon  the  ignorant  portion 
of  the  people  under  color  of  the  Judge's  authority.  The  great 
difficulty  was  "to  make  the  masses  see  beyond  their  noses — they 
do  not  see  and  feel  that  the  necessary  consequence  of  allowing 
all  the  outposts  of  slavery  to  be  carried  involves  a  certain 
destruction  of  the  citadel  itself."39 

Another  Calhoun  supporter  reported  the  results  of  his  obser 
vations  south  and  west.  The  people  of  Georgia  of  both  great 
political  parties  were  said  to  be  up  to  the  mark  and  ready  to 
act,  but  might  not  take  the  lead.  Florida  was  reported  * '  right. ' ' 
All  of  the  Southern  cities,  on  account  of  the  infusion  of  North 
erners  and  foreigners,  were  daily  becoming  more  unsound  and 
uncertain,  and  their  influence  was  spreading  to  the  interior. 
Louisiana,  in  his  opinion,  would  be  the  last  State  to  strike  for 
the  defense  of  the  South.  The  Creoles  could  not  be  made  to 
comprehend  their  danger  until  their  negroes  were  being  taken 
out  of  the  fields.  New  Orleans  was  practically  free  soil ;  the 
laborers  and  draymen  of  the  city  were  all  white  and  foreigners, 
and  they  would  mob  or  kill  a  negro  before  they  would  let  him 
drive  a  dray.  The  steamboats  were  employing  white  servants, 
and  the  issue  of  free  labor  against  slave  labor  would  soon  be 
made  at  the  South.  Furthermore,  a  feeling  was  said  to  be  preva 
lent  in  the  State  that,  by  restricting  slavery  to  its  present  bounds, 
the  lands  and  slaves  of  Louisiana  would  be  enhanced  in  value.40 
The  substance  of  this  letter  is  given  merely  as  part  evidence 


39.  Calhoun  Correspondence,  pp.  1195-1197. 

40.  H.   W.  Connor  to  Calhoun,   January   12,    1849,   Calhoun   Correspondence,   pp. 
1188-1190. 

33 


that  Calhoun  had  a  number  of  able  lieutenants  through  whose 
correspondence  he  kept  in  close  touch  with  the  Southern  popular 
pulse. 

Herschel  V.  Johnson  wrote  from  Milledgeville,  Georgia,  July 

20,    1849,   that,   notwithstanding   favorable    demonstrations,   he 

entertained  gloomy  forebodings,  for  "I  seriously  fear  that  the 

people  of  the  South  are  not  properly  awake  to  the  danger, — not 

thoroughly  nerved  to  united  resistance."41     All  of  these  letters 

/'emphasize  the  fact  that  the  great  problem  before  Calhoun  and 

his  followers  wras  to  arouse  the  masses  to  action,  and  bring  them 

•into  line  with  the  leaders.     We  are  free  to  conclude  that  they 

spared  no  efforts  in  their  purpose  to  do  so. 

Yet,  all  in  all,  events  were  progressing  in  a  way  calculated  to 
bring  joy  to  the  hearts  of  Calhoun  and  his  followers.  Two  days 
before  the  adoption  of  the  "Southern  Address,"  the  Virginia 
Assembly,  spurred  to  action  by  unfavorable  reports  concerning 
matters  in  Congress  touching  Southern  interests,  adopted  resolu 
tions  denying  that  Congress  had  any  power  over  slavery;  de 
claring  for  equality  of  rights  in  the  territories;  recommending 
concerted  action  upon  the  part  of  the  slaveholding  States,  in 
case  the  Proviso  should  pass;  declaring  that  laws  abolishing 
slavery,  or  the  slave  trade,  in  the  District  of  Columbia  would  be 
resisted  at  every  hazard;  and  requesting  the  Governor,  in  case 
either  of  the  above-mentioned  measures  should  pass  Congress,  to 
convene  the  Legislature  of  the  State  in  special  session  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  the  mode  and  measures  of  redress.42 

These  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  Democratic  State 
Convention  of  Georgia  ;43  they  were  approved  at  public  meetings 
held  all  over  the  South,44  and  they  made  a  great  impression  at 
the  North.45  All,  or  nearly  all,  of  the  Southern  States  passed 
'Similar  ones,46  for  all  felt  the  seriousness  of  the  danger  that 
threatened  from  the  North.  Those  of  North  Carolina,  passed 
on  the  same  day  as  those  of  Virginia,  protested  against  the 
aggressions  of  the  North  upon  the  rights  of  slaveholders,  and 


41.  Calhoun  Correspondence,   pp.   1197-1199. 

42.  This  act  was  passed  January   20,   1849.      Acts  of  Assembly,    1848-1849,   pp. 
257-258. 

43.  Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  1198. 

44.  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  I,  p.  105. 

45.  Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  762. 

46.  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  No.  6,  p.  3. 

34 


against  the  recent  proceedings  in  Congress,  but  at  the  same 
time  they  expressed  a  purpose  to  "repel  indignantly  every  at 
tempt  to  alienate  any  portion  of  our  country  from  the  rest,  or 
to  enfeeble  the  sacred  ties  which  now  link  together  the  various 
parts."47 

Impelled  by  the  growing  indignation  against  the  North,  the 
Virginia  Legislature,  on  February  7,  1849,  adopted  a  resolution 
requesting  their  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  to 
use  their  earnest  and  persevering  efforts  to  have  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Act  of  1793  so  amended  that  it  would  give  to  slave  owners 
the  rights  guaranteed  them  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.48  By  February  12  it  was  so  far  committed  to  Calhoun's 
plan  that  resolutions  were  adopted  authorizing  and  requesting 
the  Governor  to  issue  a  call  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a 
State  convention,  which  should  be  given  power  to  appoint  dele 
gates  to  a  Southern  convention,  in  case  the  Proviso,  or  the  bil] 
abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  should  pass  Con 
gress.49  In  spite  of  these  open  demonstrations  of  a  set  purpose 
upon  the  part  of  the  Legislature,  it  was  confidently  asserted  by 
one  of  Calhoun's  followers  that,  "should  the  Wilmot  Proviso 
be  passed,  nay,  should  Congress  next  proceed  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  District,  and  the  trade  between  the  States  .  .  .  Virginia, 
after  a  few  patriotic  groans,  will  submit.  She  is  already  deeply 
infected  with  the  spirit  of  abolitionism,  much  more  deeply  than 
most  persons  think,  and  I  have  no  doubt  our  leaders — who,  for 
the  most  part,  are  mere  pensioners  of  the  Federal  Government 
.  .  .  will  take  advantage  of  'the  circumstances  to  make  such  com 
promises  as  they  have  made  heretofore."  The  result  of  the  last 
election,  he  stated,  afforded  no  fair  criterion  of  popular  senti 
ment,  except  in  some  portions  east  of  the  mountains.  When  the 
occasion  called  for  the  decisive  action,  '  *  South  Carolina  will  have 
to  look  to  the  States  further  south  for  support."50 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  was  strong  opposition  to  the  instik 
tution  of  negro  slavery  in  the  border  States.  Owing  to  the  ; 
unprofitableness  of  this  species  of  labor  there,  there  was  a  dis- 


47.  Laws  of  North  Carolina,   1848-1849,  pp.  237-239. 

48.  Acts  of  Assembly   (Extra  and  Regular  Session),  1849-1850,  pp.  240-254. 

49.  Ibid,  pp.  233-234. 

50.  R.  K.  Cralle  to  Calhoun,  July  25,   1849,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  pp.  1199- 
1202. 

35 


position  upon  the  part  of  slave  owners  to  sell  their  slaves  to  the 
planters  in  the  States  farther  south,  and  eventually  to  abolish 
the  system.51  This  caused  great  alarm  in  the  cotton  States. 
There  it  was  feared  that,  after  disposing  of  their  negroes,  and 
receiving  their  money  in  payment,  they  would  join  forces  with 
the  Abolitionists  in  an  effort  to  abolish  slavery  from  the  coun 
try.52  To  check  and  anticipate  their  danger,  it  was  proposed  to 
forbid  the  introduction  of  negroes  from  the  border  States,  and 
in  this  way  retain  those  States  as  allies  by  forcing  them  to  keep 
their  slaves,  and  thus  have  a  common  interest  with  the  lower 
South  in  the  preservation  of  the  institution.53.  There  were  the 
best  of  reasons  for  carrying  out  this  suggestion,  since  the  north 
ern  States  of  the  South  were  reputed  to  comprise  over  half  of 
the  political  strength  of  the  slave  States.54  Movements  were  set 
on  foot  in  Mississippi,55  and  in  Georgia,56  for  its  execution,  but 
the  activity  of  the  Abolitionists  had  checked  the  emancipation 
movement  to  a  great  extent,57  and  it  is  doubtful  if  such  action 
was  necessary. 

In  Kentucky  the  movement  towards  freeing  the  negroes  was 
more  marked  than  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  border — a  move 
ment  that  awakened  genuine  feelings  of  alarm  in  Tennessee, 
since  it  threatened  the  removal  of  the  bulwarks  between  the 
latter  and  ultra-abolitionism.58  Henry  Clay  was  one  of  its  most 
influential  advocates.  In  a  letter  to  Richard  Tindell,  February 
17,  1849,  Clay  outlined  a  plan  for  gradual  emancipation  that 
was  intended  to  influence  a  convention  about  to  assemble  for  the 
purpose  of  revising  the  State  Constitution.59  He  had  little  con 
fidence  in  any  hopes  of  success,  however,  for  the  agitation  North 
and  South  had  produced  a  strong  anti-emancipation  feeling  in 
the  State.  A  people's  meeting,  held  in  Trimble  County,  re 
quested  him  to  resign  his  office  as  Senator,  on  account  of  the 


51.  De  Bow's  Review,  Vol.  XI,  p.  618. 

52.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXV,  pp.  187-188. 

53.  De  Bow's  Review,  Vol.  XI,  p.  618. 

54.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXV,  pp.  187-188. 

55.  Ibid,  p.  97. 

56.  Republican  Banner,  February  26,  1849. 

57.  De  Bow's  Review,  Vol.  XI,  p.  618. 

58.  Republican  Banner,  February  26,  1849.      It  was  declared  that  the  matter  was 
in  advance  of  all  party  questions. 

BO.    See  Public  Correspondence  in  Colton,   Last  Seven   Years  of  Henry  Clay,   pp. 
346-352. 

36 


sentiments  expressed  in  his  Tindell  letter.60  A  convention,  made 
up  of  friends  of  constitutional  reform  had  already  met  at  Frank 
fort,  February  5,  and  adopted  resolutions  to  the  effect  that  it 
was  inexpedient  to  alter  the  existing  relation  between  master 
and  slave.61  The  friends  of  emancipation  also  held  a  convention 
in  the  same  city,  on  April  25.  One  hundred  and  fifty-six  dele 
gates  were  present,  representing  twenty-four  counties.  Henry 
Clay  was  chairman.  Resolutions  were  adopted  setting  forth 
that  no  attempt  ought  to  be  made  then,  or  at  any  time,  to  set 
slaves  free  by  compulsory  emancipation,  without  first  compen 
sating  the  owners,  but  that  the*  movement  ought  to  begin  with 
those  born  after  the  beginning  of  the  scheme,  and  those  set  free 
removed  from  the  State  as  soon  as  liberated.62 

The  Constitutional  Convention,  when  it  met,  not  only  did1 
not  provide  for  emancipation,  but  it  inserted  a  clause  in  the  j 
revised  instrument  denying  to  the  General  Assembly  the  power 
to  pass  laws  for  freeing  the  slaves,  without  the  consent  of  their 
owners,  or  without  paying  to  owners,  previous  to  such  emancipa 
tion,  a  full  equivalent  in  money.  It  also  provided  for  their 
removal  from  the  State  as  soon  as  set  free.  A  free  negro,  or 
mulatto,  thereafter  immigrating,  or  refusing  to  leave  the  State, 
or  having  left  and  returned,  was  to  be  guilty  of  felony,  in  the 
prosecution  for  which  a  grand  jury  was  not  necessary.63  It  thus 
appears  that  one  of  the  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of  emancipa 
tion  in  Kentucky  was  the  problem  of  how  to  dispose  of  the  freed 
negro;  but,  had  that  problem  been  solved,  it  is  doubtful  if  the 
work  could  have  been  accomplished  in  the  year  1849. 

In  Tennessee  we  have  the  whole  Southern  situation,  outside 
of  South  Carolina,  re-enacted  upon  a  small  scale.  The  Demo 
crats,  under  the  spurrings  of  certain  leaders,  were  taking  ground 
closely  approximating  the  standard  held  up  by  Calhouri.  There, 
as  elsewhere  in  the  South,  the  Whigs,  looking  forward  with  high 
hopes  to  the  approaching  Taylor  administration,  held  up  the 


60.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXV,  p.  384. 

61.  Ibid,  p.  122. 

62.  Ibid,  p.  301. 

63.  Report  of  the  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  for,  the  Revision  of 
the  Constitiition  of  the  State  of  Kentucky,    1849,   pp.   1100-1101. 

37 


restraining  hand.64  The  Democratic  State  Convention,  which 
met  at  Memphis,  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions;  one  of  which, 
the  so-called  Coe  resolution,  and  which  evidently  had  the  in 
fluence  of  Calhoun  back  of  it,  recommended  to  the  people  and 
Legislatures  of  the  South,  that  they  discontinue  commercial  rela 
tions  with  the  North  and  foster  direct  trade  with  Southern 
ports,  "by  all  constitutional  means  within  their  power,"  if 
the  North  committed  further  aggressions  upon  their  rights  by 
enforcing  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  or  kindred  measures.  The  con 
stitutionality  of  this  method  of  procedure  was,  rightly  enough, 
questioned  by  the  Whig  press,65  and  it  was  openly  charged  that 
a  few  of  the  Democratic  leaders  were  trying  to  take  advanced 
ground  under  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  Moreover,  it  was 
declared  that  the  "drill  sergeants"  of  that  party,  who,  as  the 
recent  events  plainly  showed,  did  not  recognize  his  leadership, 
and  who  were  trying  to  make  the  Whigs  of  the  South  follow  the 
South  Carolina  clique,  had  a  heavy  task  before  them  to  first 
whip  into  line  the  able  and  refractory  men  of  their  own  party.66 
They,  however,  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  they  were  ready  to 
unite  with  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  in  resisting  aggres 
sions  upon  their  rights,  but  "the  people"  they  in  nowise  regarded 
as  tied  to  the  measures  of  a  few  of  the  Democratic  leaders.67 
The  Whigs  of  Tennessee  had  correctly  analyzed  the  political 
situation. 

The  course  of  events  in  Missouri  resulted  in  the  retirement 
of  Thomas  H.  Benton  from  the  United  States  Senate.  Although 
a  Southerner,  Benton  had  taken  a  position  on  the  question  of 
slavery  expansion  in  accord  with  some  of  the  more  conservative 
men  of  the  North.  Ever  since  he  had  supported  and  defended 

63.  The  Daily  Center-State  American,  citing  the  Augusta  Constitutional  (Georgia) 
in  comment  on  opposition  to  the  stand  taken  by  South  Carolina,  states:  "The  glory 
of  these  assaults  is  monopolized  solely  by  the  Whig  press  of  the  South,  and  only  a  few 
of  these  have  been  ardent  competitors  as  to  which  should  say  the  bitterest  things." 

65.  The  Republican  Banner,  May  17,   1849,  thus  comments:      "Let  us  see,   now, 
what  all  this  means!      The  Constitution  expressly  reserves  to  the  General  Government 
the  power  to  'regulate  commerce  among  the  several  States.'     And,  yet,  here  is  a  measure 
proposed   by    a    prominent    member   of   the    Democratic   party,    wnich   looks   to    an    act 
plainly    unconstitutional.   ...   It    calls   upon    the   Legislature   to   do    by    'constitutional 
means'    that   which,    according  to   the  Constitution   of  the   United    States,    these   bodies 
have  no  right   to  do  at  all!      Put  the  best  construction  upon  the  Resolution  possible, 
and  it  is  merely  a  wretched  farce!" 

66.  The  Democratic  party  at  the  South  threatened  to  split  over  the  issue  as  ithad 
done  at  the  North.       Democratic  Review,  Sept.  1849. 

67.  Republican  Banner,  March  29.  1849. 

38 


President  Jackson  in  his  policy  towards  nullification  in  South 
Carolina,  he  had  been  a  personal  enemy  of  Calhoun;  he  had 
taken  a  prominent  part  in  defeating  the  latter 's  plans  for  the 
immediate  annexation  of  Texas  in  1844 ;  and,  now,  in  the  present 
controversy,  he  freely  charged  that  Calhoun  and  his  followers 
were  plotting  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.68  Because  of  his  atti 
tude  in  regard  to  Texas  annexation  in  1844,  the  Missouri  fol 
lowers  of  Calhoun  at  that  time,  urged  on  by  influences  outside  of 
the  State,  tried  to  oust  him  from  the  Senate,  and,  incidentally, 
to  deprive  him  of  his  control  over  Missouri  politics,  but  unsuc 
cessfully.  A  State  Legislature,  in  which  his  followers  held  con 
trol,  triumphantly  re-elected  him  in  1845.  After  this,  his  enemies 
in  the  State  joined  the  pro-slavery,  or  Calhoun,  wing  of  the 
Democratic  party,  and,  getting  control  of  the  Legislature  in 
December,  1848,  they  adopted  a  set  of  resolutions  condemning 
the  Wilmot  Proviso,  and  instructing  their  Senators  and  Repre 
sentatives  in  Congress  as  to  what  course  to  pursue.69  These  reso 
lutions  were  read  in  the  United  States  Senate,  January  3,  1849, 
by  David  R.  Atkinson,70  Benton's  colleague,  and  a  strong  Cal 
houn  supporter.  Imagining  that  he  saw  the  influence  of  Calhoun 
back  of  these  resolutions,  and  interpreting  the  instructions  in 
the  light  of  reflections  cast  upon  the  course  he  had  pursued  in 
Congress,71  Benton  determined  to  disregard  the  latter,  and  make 
a  direct  appeal  to  the  people  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  his 
conduct. 

Accordingly,  after  Congress  had  adjourned,  he  issued,  May 
9,  1849,  an  "Appeal"72  to  the  people  of  Missouri,  which  he  fol 
lowed  up  by  an  energetic  campaign  through  the  State  preceding 
the  election  of  the  next  Legislature,  to  which  would  fall  the  duty 
of  choosing  a  United  States  Senator,  as  his  term  of  office  was 


68.  "You  see  that  Benton  has  openly  deserted,   and  that  he  pours  out  his  venom 
against    me.      I    am    averse    to    touching   him,    and,    if    his    aim   had   been    against   me 
exclusively,    I   would   not  notice   him.      But   such    is   not   the   fact.      He   strikes   at   the 
South    and   its   cause  through   me;    and   I   have   concluded  to   repel  his   attack   against 
myself,  to  the  extent  that  it  is  necessary  to  repel  it  against  the  South."      Calhoun  to 
Andrew  Pickens  Calhoun,  June  23,   1849,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  768. 

69.  Laws  of  Missouri,  1848-1849,  p.  667. 

70.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  97-98. 

71.  P.  O.  Ray,  The  Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  p.  41.     Mr.  Ray  writes 
that  no  more  significance  would  have  attached  to  these  resolutions  than  to  similar  ones 
aimed    against    the    Wilmot    Proviso    in    other    States    had    it    not    been    for    Benton's 
extraordinary  course  in  relation  to  them. 

72.  For  the  "Appeal"  see  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXV,  p.  332. 

39 


about  to  expire.  The  excitement  was  intense,  since  the  campaign 
was  of  such  a  nature  that  everyone  felt  called  upon  to  take  sides. 
It  spread  to  the  Whigs,  who,  in  consequence,  divided  into  Benton 
and  anti-Benton  factions.  The  legislative  resolutions,  known, 
from  their  author,  as  the  Jackson  resolutions,  and  Benton 's 
"Appeal"  formed  the  platforms  of  the  radicals  and  conserva 
tives,  respectively.  Benton  was  denounced  for  his  refusal  to 
obey  the  legislative  instructions;  and  he,  in  characteristic  Ben- 
ton  fashion,  enlarged  upon  the  charges  made  in  his  appeal  to 
the  people,  and  denounced  his  enemies  as  followers  of  Calhoun, 
who  were  plotting  his  downfall,  and  the  dissolution  of  the  Union. 
The  campaign  was  exceedingly  acrimonious. 

The  Legislature  elected  was  so  evenly  divided  between  the 
Benton,  anti-Benton  and  Whigs,  that  no  one  faction  could  com 
mand  a  sufficient  majority  to  elect  a  Senator.  Balloting  went 
on  from  January  10  to  January  22,  1851.  Excitement  ran  high. 
Finally,  the  Whigs,  who  held  the  balance  of  power  in  the  Legis 
lature,  were  able  to  profit  by  the  Democratic  warfare,  and,  by 
winning  a  few  votes  from  each  of  the  other  factions,  they  suc 
ceeded  in  electing  one  of  their  own  party,  Henry  S.  Geyer,  of 
St.  Louis.  Benton  soon  after  organized  his  followers  in  a  bolt 
from  the  regular  Democratic  organization,  ran  as  an  independent 
candidate  in  the  First  Congressional  District  of  Missouri,  and 
was  elected  to  the  United  States  House  of  Representatives.73 

The  feeling  at  the  North  became  more  and  more  pronounced 
as  time  went  on.  There,  as  at  the  South,  the  tendency  towards 
party  cleavage  was  manifested  in  the  presence  of  the  issue  that 
was  more  a  question  between  sections  than  between  parties,  in 
spite  of  the  efforts  of  politicians  to  make  it  appear  a  party 
matter.  After  the  election  of  1848,  Northern  Democrats  were 
inclined  to  unite  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  exclusion  from  the 
territories.  In  Ohio,  the  Regulars  and  the  Independents,  those 
Democrats  who  had  supported  Van  Buren  in  1848,  united  and 
elected  Salmon  P.  Chase,  a  man  holding  extreme  anti-slavery 
views,  to  the  United  States  Senate,  where  he  took  his  seat  in 
March,  1849.74  At  about  the  same  time  the  Whigs  of  New  York 
sent  William  H.  Seward  to  the  Senate.75  The  selection  of  these 


73.  P.  O.  Rav.  The  Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Chs.  I  and  II. 

74.  Warden,  Life  of  Chase,  p.  336. 

75.  Seward   entered   the   Senate   at  the   time  Taylor   was   inaugurated.      Seward's 
Works,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  414-416. 

40 


two  men  was  significant  of  the  altered  state  of  public  opinion  at 
the  North.  Both  were  leaders  in  a  new  movement  that  was 
rapidly  taking  shape ;  both  were  opposed  to  any  compromise  with 
the  South;  and  they  were  disciples  of  John  Quincy  Adams,76 
who  saw  more  clearly  than  any  other  statesman  at  the  North 
what  Calhoun  at  the  South  saw,  that  a  compromise  would  merely 
put  off,  and  not  decide,  the  question.  They  were  striving  to 
accomplish  at  the  North  exactly  what  Calhoun  was  trying  to  do- 
at  the  South :  namely,  force  the  issue  to  a  settlement.  They 
were  men  of  a  new  school  of  statesmanship,  who  were  destined 
to  cause  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  nation. 

The  Legislatures  of  all  of  the  Northern  States,  except  Iowa, 
passed  resolutions  either  declaring  that  Congress  had  the  power 
to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories,  as  if  in  answer  to  those  of 
the  Southern  States  denying  the  right,  or  requesting  their  Repre 
sentatives  and  instructing  their  Senators  to  use  their  utmost 
efforts  to  bring  about  the  abolition  of  slavery,  or  the  slave  trade, 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.77  In  Iowa  similar  resolutions 
passed  the  Senate,  but  failed  in  the  House.78  When  we  consider 
the  fact  that  some  of  these  resolutions  were  passed  by  Whig 
Legislatures,  and  others  by  Legislatures  in  which  the  Democrats 
were  in  the  majority,79  we  gain  an  idea  of  the  weakness  of 
party  lines. 

Everywhere  new  forces  were  taking  shape,  and  new  leaders 
were  coming  to  the  front.  There  was  great  activity  among  the 
Free-Soilers.  At  one  of  their  conventions,  held  at  Worcester, 
Massachusetts,  Charles  Sumner  first  became  prominent  as  a 
national  leader  in  the  anti-slavery  campaign.80  The  Free- 
Soilers  of  Ohio  celebrated  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787 
at  the  city  of  Cleveland,  July  13,  1849.  Henry  Clay,  who  had 
evidently  increased  his  popularity  with  them  by  his  advocacy  of 
emancipation  in  Kentucky,  was  invited  to  attend  and  address 
the  gathering,  but  he  declined,  probably,  as  one  of  the  news 
papers  suggested,  because  he  considered  it  ill-timed  and  likely 
to  increase  the  prevailing  excitement.81 


76.  Ford,  The  Campaign  of  1844,  in  Proceedings  of  the  Amer.  Antiq.   Soc.,  Vol. 
XX,  p.  125. 

77.  New  York  Tribune,  October  24,  1849. 

78.  Niles  Register,  Vol.  LXXV,  p.  113. 

79.  Ibid,  pp.  190,  239,  399. 

80.  Lester,  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Charles  Sumner,  p.  67. 

81.  National  Intelligencer  (Daily),  July  21,  1849. 

41 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   CONGRESSIONAL  ADOPTION  OF   CLAY'S 
COMPROMISE. 


The  intrusion  of  the  slavery  question  into  national  politics 
prevented  the  organization  of  California  and  New  Mexico  during 
the  years  1848  and  1849.  The  inhabitants  of  those  territories, 
feeling  the  need  of  more  efficient  governments  than  were  afforded 
by  President  Polk's  military  organizations,  and  becoming  impa 
tient  over  the  inactivity  of  Congress  in  their  behalf,  proceeded 
to  take  matters  into  their  own  hands.  We  shall  first  consider 
the  situation  in  California,  where  the  accidental  discovery  of 
gold  resulted  in  a  rapid  increase  in  population,  and  exerted  a 
powerful  influence  upon  the  people's  effort  for  political  relief. 

Dissatisfaction  with  the  military  government  began  soon 
after  the  arrival  of  the  overland  emigrants  in  1847.  The  people 
disliked  taxation  without  representation,  and  a  business  depres 
sion  added  to  the  feeling  of  unrest.  The  discovery  of  gold  in 
creased  the  difficulties.  Towns  were  deserted  for  the  mines,  and 
industrial  pursuits  ceased  in  many  places.  Immigrants  poured 
in  from  Oregon,  Mexico,  and  the  Sandwich  Islands.  As  news  of 
the  discovery  spread  over  the  world,  thousands  disposed  of  their 
property,  and  sought  fortunes  in  California.  The  arrival  of  all 
sorts  and  conditions  of  people  naturally  resulted  in  much  dis 
order  and  lawlessness.  Murders,  highway  robberies,  and  other 
outrages,  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  forced  the  inhabitants, 
in  the  absence  of  Congressional  action,  and  by  reason  of  the 
inaction  of  the  military  Governor,  Colonel  Mason,  to  take  mat 
ters  into  their  own  hands.  This  they  did  in  characteristic  fron 
tier  fashion  by  applying  the  principles  of  "Lynch  Law"  to  the 
offenders;  but  such  methods  did  not  meet  with  approval  among 
a  people  naturally  inclined  to  respect  the  law. 

Many  thought  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Colonel  Mason  to  call 
a  convention,  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  up  a  provisional  terri 
torial  government,  at  the  time  peace  was  declared  with  Mexico, 
and  when  he  neglected  to  do  so  the  dissatisfaction  grew.  The 
public  mind  was  quieted  during  the  summer  and  fall  of  1848, 
however,  by  the  hope  that  Congress  would  provide  the  necessary 

42 


organization.  The  hope  proving  vain,  and  no  immediate  relief 
being  promised  them,  the  people  themselves  decided  upon  the 
formation  of  a  provisional  government.  A  large  public  meeting, 
held  in  San  Jose,  December  11,  1849,  unanimously  adopted  a 
resolution  recommending  the  formation  of  a  provisional  govern 
ment,  to  remain  in  force  until  Congress  should  act,  and  the 
proceedings,  published  and  circulated,  met  with  approval  in  the 
northern  and  middle  sections  of  the  territory.  Similar  meetings 
at  San  Francisco,  Sacramento,  Sonoma,  and  Monterey,  held 
during  the  months  of  December  and  January,  endorsed  the  action 
taken  at  San  Jose,  and  elected  delegates  to  attend  a  convention 
for  the  purpose.  At  this  point  of  the  proceedings  the  move 
ment  was  checked  by  two  occurrences:  the  severe  winter  rains 
rendered  the  roads  impassible  and  prevented  communication, 
and  news  was  received  from  Washington  to  the  effect  that  Con 
gress  would  not  adjourn  until  a  government  had  been  provided 
for  the  territory. 

The  arrival  of  the  steamship  Edith,  May  28,  1849,  with  the 
news  that  Congress  had  again  adjourned  without  providing  the 
much-desired  government,  decided  the  people  to  delay  no  longer. 
At  the  beginning  of  June,  the  so-called  Legislative  Assembly  of 
San  Francisco  issued  an  address  to  the  people  of  California, 
recommending  that  at  least  twelve  delegates  be  elected  to  attend 
a  general  convention  at  San  Jose  on  August  3.  In  place  of  a 
provisional  government,  as  recommended  by  the  San  Jose  meet 
ing,  the  San  Francisco  address  proposed  the  formation  of  a 
temporary  State  government,  to  be  put  into  operation  at  the 
earliest  practicable  moment,  after  it  had  been  ratified  by  the 
people,  and  to  become  a  permanent  State  government  when  the 
territory  was  admitted  to  the  Union.  This  recommendation  met 
with  general  approval.1 

Without  any  knowledge  of  the  proceedings  at  San  Francisco, 
General  Bennett  Riley,  who  succeeded  Colonel  Mason  as  military 
Governor  of  California,  issued  from  Monterey,  June  3,  1849,  a 
proclamation  calling  a  convention  of  the  people  to  meet  at  that 
place  September  1,  1849,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  State 


1.  Memorial  of  Senators  and  Representatives  Elect  from  California  asking  Ad 
mission  into  the  Union.  House  Misc.  Doc.,  No.  44,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  1849-1850, 
pp.  1-8.  In  the  following  pages  this  document  will  be  referred  to  as  the  "Memorial 
of  Senators  and  Representatives." 

43 


Constitution.  General  Riley  had  made  a  close  study  of  the 
political  situation  in  the  territory,  which  soon  convinced  him 
that,  as  a  matter  of  self-preservation,  the  people  would  be  forced 
to  take  matters  into  their  own  hands  unless  Congress  made  early 
provision  for  them.  Accordingly,  he  had  drawn  up  his  procla 
mation  beforehand,  and  awaited  news  from  Washington  before 
proceeding  further  in  the  matter;  but  news  of  the  continued 
inactivity  at  the  seat  of  government,  brought  by  the  steamer 
Edith,  determined  him,  and  he  at  once  issued  the  call.2 

A  meeting  at  San  Jose,  June  7,  concurred  in  the  call  issued 
by  General  Riley,  and  similar  gatherings  held  all  over  the  terri 
tory  endorsed  it.  The  people  of  San  Francisco  were  at  first 
inclined  to  question  the  military  Governor's  authority,  but, 
owing  to  the  press  of  circumstances,  they  recommended  co 
operation.  The  election  of  delegates  took  place  on  August  I.3 

Upon  the  appointed  day,  September  1,  1849,  the  delegates 
met  in  convention  at  Monterey,  but,  a  quorum  not  being  present, 
they  adjourned  to  September  3.  Eight  of  the  forty-eight  mem 
bers  were  natives  of  California  who  spoke  the  Spanish  language. 
Twenty-three  were  natives  of  free  States,  and  fourteen  of  slave 
States.  Very  few  books  of  reference  were  available  for  the  use 
of  the  delegates,  but  copies  of  the  recently-framed  Constitutions 
of  New  York  and  Iowa  had  been  procured.  Party  affiliations 
played  no  part  in  the  proceedings.4  In  the  Constitution  drawn 
up  by  this  body,  the  section  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  providing  that 
"Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  unless  for  the 
punishment  of  crimes,  shall  ever  be  tolerated  in  this  State,"  was 
adopted  unanimously.5  This  may  strike  one  as  rather  strange, 
considering  the  number  of  Southern  men  in  the  convention,  but 
the  fact  is  that  there  was  general  opposition  in  the  territory  to 
competition  with  cheap  labor — an  opposition  that  was  more 
marked  after  the  discovery  of  the  mines  than  before.6  The 
question  of  boundaries  for  the  new  State  claimed  much  atten- 


2.  Willey,  The  Transition  Period  of  California,  pp.  83-88.    In  the  following  pages 
this  work  will  be  referred  to  as  "Willey,  Transition  Period." 

3.  Memorial  of  Senators  and  Representatives,  p.  9. 

4.  Willey,  Transition  Period,  pp.  92-94 ;  Bancroft,  California,  Vol.  XXIII,  p.  288 

5.  Memorial  of  Senators  and  Representatives,  p.   10;   Willey,   Transition  Period, 
p.  97;  Bancroft,  California,  Vol.  XXIII,  p.  290. 

6.  Memorial  of  Senators  and  Representatives,  p.   10 ;   Willey,   Transition  Period, 
p.  133. 

44 


tion  from  the  delegates.  General  Riley's  proclamation  embraced 
only  the'  territory  west  of  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains,7  but 
many  were  in  favor  of  a  more  eastern  boundary.8  The  Sierra 
Nevada  line  was  finally  adopted  as  being  the  more  natural  eastern 
limit.9  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  those  who  argued  for  the 
larger  boundary  sought  to  settle  the  slavery  controversy  by  in 
cluding  the  territory  in  dispute,  and  thus  leaving  to  Congress 
simply  the  matter  of  admitting  the  new  State  to  the  Union.10 
Since  the  larger  number  who  voted  for  the  larger  boundary  were 
men  from  the  free  States,  the  often-repeated  charge  that  the 
pro-slavery  members  hoped  to  eventually  secure  an  additional 
State  for  the  South  by  making  California  so  large  that  it  would 
subsequently  have  to  be  divided,  seems  to  be  without  foundation. 
Nothing  was  said  during  the  debate  to  arouse  even  a  suspicion 
of  such  a  hope  upon  their  part.11 

The  Constitution,  printed  in  English  and  Spanish,  was  sub 
mitted  to  the  people  December  13,  1849.  In  all,  15,000  votes 
were  polled;  2061  for,  and  811  against — the  printer  failed  to 
print  the  words  "for  the  Constitution"  on  many  of  the  ballots, 
which  also  contained  the  names  of  candidates  for  State  offices, 
and  they  were  blanks  in  consequence.12  A  large  proportion  of 
those  who  voted  in  favor  of  the  Constitution  were  recent  immi 
grants  from  slave  States.13  The  newly-elected  Legislature  met 
at  San  Jose,  the  selected  capitol,  December  15,  1849,  and  elected 
Senators  to  Congress.  General  Riley,  by  proclamation,  soon 
after  delivered  the  government  into  the  hands  of  the  State  offi 
cials.14  Upon  the  Senators  and  Representatives  elect  proceeding 
to  Washington,  and,  being  refused  admission  to  Congress,  they 
drew  up  their  memorial  in  order  to  set  forth  the  true  state  of 
affairs  in  California. 

In  New  Mexico  the  absence  of  a  sufficient  population  pre 
vented  the  formation  of  a  State  government,  but  an  attempt  was 


7.  Willey,  Transition  Period,  p.  101. 

8.  Ibid,  p.  98. 

9.  Ibid,  p.  122. 

10.  Ibid,  p.  108. 

11.  Memorial  of  Senators  and  Representatives,  p.  10;  Willey,  Transition  Period, 
pp.  104-105. 

12.  Memorial  of  Senators  and  Representatives,  p.  14. 

13.  The  Memorial  states  two-thirds,   p.    10;   Willey's  estimate  is  three-fifths.      See 
Transition  Period,  p.   133. 

14.  Memorial  of  Senators  and  Representatives,  p.  14. 

45 


made  to  stir  Congress  to  action.  A  convention,  called  in  con 
formity  with  a  proclamation  issued  by  Acting-  Governor  Lieu 
tenant-Colonel  Bell  met  at  Santa  Fe,  September  24,  1849. 
Resolutions  were  adopted,  plans  for  a  territorial  government 
were  drawn  up,  and  a  delegate  was  elected  to  represent  them  in 
Congress.  The  resolutions,  which  set  forth  their  chief  grievances, 
complained  that  for  three  years  the  people  had  suffered  under  a 
military  government  so  inefficient  that  business  had  been  para 
lyzed;  that  they  had  not  been  properly  protected  from  the 
Indians;  that  there  was  no  way  to  provide  for  the  education  of 
their  children;  and  they  prayed  Congress  for  the  organization 
of  an  effective  territorial  government.  Congress  was  asked  to 
provide  for  clauses  in  the  territorial  Constitution  guaranteeing 
protection  to  Catholics,  and  securing  the  "compliance  with  con 
tracts  between  master  and  servant,  according  to  the  intent  of  all 
parties."  Boundaries  for  the  territory  wTere  suggested  as  fol 
lows  :  Indian  Territory  on  the  north,  California  on  the  west, 
the  boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  on  the 
South,  and  the  State  of  Texas  on  the  east — limits  by  no  means 
definite  when  we  consider  that  the  eastern  extent  of  California 
and  the  western  boundary  of  Texas  were  then  undetermined. 
For  the  better  protection  of  the  territory,  a  permanent  establish 
ment  of  troops  was  recommended;  one  regiment  to  be  raised, 
organized,  and  officered  within  the  territory.15 

Such  was  the  political  situation  in  California  and  New 
Mexico  when  the  thirty-first  Congress  met,  on  the  first  Monday 
in  December,  1849 ;  but,  owing  to  the  lack  of  more  rapid  means 
of  communication,  no  news  of  the  proceedings  had  been  received 
in  Washington.  So  far  as  the  people  of  California  were  con- 
/cerned,  the  question  relative  to  the  introduction  of  negro  slavery 
into  their  midst  had  already  been  settled,  but  before  their  Sena 
tors  and  Representatives  were  admitted  to  their  respective 
Houses  of  Congress  the  sectional  controversy  had  to  run  its 
course. 

Just  as  soon  as  Congress  met,  the  struggle  was  renewed  over 
the  election  of  a  Speaker  in  the  House  of  Representatives.     The 


15.  Journal  and  Proceedings  of  a  Convention  of  Delegates  Elected  by  the  People 
of  New  Mexico,  Santa  Fe,  September  24,  1849,  Presenting  a  Plan  for  a  Civil  Govern 
ment  and  Asking  Congress  to  Take  Action.  House  Misc.  Doc.,  No.  39,  31  Cong.,  1 

Sess.,   1849-1850. 

46 


Whigs  and  Democrats  were  so  equally  divided  in  that  branch 
of  the  National  Government  that  thirteen  Free  Soil  members 
held  the  balance  of  power,  and  they  repeatedly  used  their  advan 
tage  to  prevent  the  election  of  either  the  Whig  candidate,  Robert 
C.  Winthrop,  of  Massachusetts,  or  the  Democratic  candidate, 
Howell  Cobb,  of  Georgia.  Balloting  went  on  for  three  weeks, 
amid  great  disorder.  At  one  time  W.  J.  Brown,  a  Democrat 
from  Indiana,  was  about  to  be  elected,  when  it  was  discovered 
that  he  had  pledged  himself,  in  case  he  was  elected,  to  make  up 
the  committees  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  Mr.  Wilmot  and 
his  friends.  This  angered  Southern  members,  and  threats  of 
disunion  were  uttered  in  the  course  of  the  debate  that  followed. 
Robert  Toombs  and  A.  H.  Stephens  were  especially  outspoken 
and  bitter  in  their  denunciations.  After  an  exciting  attempt  to 
gain  the  floor,  during  which  he  was  repeatedly  interrupted  by 
cries  of  "Order,"  Toombs  finally  gained  his  point,  and  de 
clared:  "I  do  not  then  hesitate  to  avow  before  this  House  and 
the  country,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  living  God,  that  if,  by 
your  legislation,  you  seek  to  drive  us  from  the  territories  pur 
chased  by  the  common  blood  and  treasure  of  the  people,  and  tc 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District,  thereby  attempting  to  fix  a 
national  degradation  upon  half  the  States  of  this  confederacy, 
I  am  for  disunion,  and  if  my  physical  courage  be  equal  to  the 
maintenance  of  my  convictions  of  right  and  duty,  I  will  devote 
all  I  am,  and  all  I  have  on  earth,  to  its  consummation. ' '  Finally, 
after  three  weeks  of  such  scenes,  it  was  voted  that  a  plurality 
should  elect,  and  on  the  sixty-third  ballot  Howell  Cobb  was 
declared  Speaker.16 

President  Taylor  sent  in  his  annual  message  as  soon  as  the 
House  was  organized.  It  had  been  written  before  the  Constitu 
tion  of  California  had  been  received,  and,  in  reference  to  matters 
in  that  section  of  the  country,  it  called  attention  to  recent  news 
that  gave  him  reason  to  believe  that  a  State  Constitution  had 
been  drawn  up,  and  that  admission  into  the  Union  would  shortly 
be  applied  for ;  this  application  he  recommended  to  the  favorable 
consideration  of  Congress.17  Previous  to  his  inauguration,  there 
had  been  much  speculation  in  regard  to  just  what  stand  the  new 


16.  For  the  proceedings  see  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  2-67. 

17.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  V,  pp.  9-24. 

47 


Executive  would  take  on  the  slavery  question.  His  first  message 
was  by  no  means  reassuring  to  the  South.  Calhoun,  ever  intent 
upon  keeping  the  irritating  subject  out  of  Congress,  had  re 
quested,  through  Secretary  of  State  Clayton,  that  nothing  be 
said  regarding  the  slavery  difficulty,18  but  his  request  was  not 
complied  with,  for  a  paragraph  was  inserted  which  declared 
that  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  would  be  the  greatest  of  calami 
ties,  and  that  he  would  stand  by  it,  and  maintain  it,  to  the  full 
extent  of  the  obligations  imposed,  and  the  power  conferred  on 
him  by  the  Constitution.  When  General  Taylor  went  to  Wash 
ington,  he  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  Northerners  were  the 
aggressors  in  the  sectional  struggle,  but  his  experience  soon 
taught  him  to  think  otherwise.  Senator  Seward,  of  New  York, 
became  his  chief  advisor,19  and  from  this  fact  we  are  fain  to 
conclude,  with  Mr.  Rhodes,  that  his  influence  "was  a  potent 
factor  in  the  President's  actual  envisagement  of  the  situation."20 
In  gaining  his  position  of  influence,  Seward  was  doubtless  ably 
assisted  by  his  friend,  Thurlow  Weed,  who,  from  the  prominent 
part  he  had  played  in  the  election,  had  great  influence  with 
the  new  President. 

President  Taylor's  policy  in  regard  to  the  territories  was  in 
perfect  accord  with  the  action  of  the  people  of  California.  Be 
fore  his  inauguration,  he  said  that  "he  desired  to  substitute  the 
rule  of  law  and  order  .  .  .  for  the  bowie  knife  and  revolvers"21 
there;  and,  one  month  after  that  event,  in  the  spring  of  1849, 
he  sent  T.  Butler  King,  a  Whig  Congressman  from  Georgia,  as 
confidential  agent  of  the  administration,  to  assist  the  movement 
looking  towards  the  formation  of  a  State  government.22  Whether 
or  not  this  course  was  advised  by  Seward,  we  have  no  means  of 
determining,  but  it  shows  that  the  President  was  anxious  to  have 
California  organized  as  a  State,  and  thus  removed  from  the 
controversy. 

Soon  after  the  annual  message  had  been  received  by  Con 
gress,  Senator  Foote,  of  Mississippi,  moved  a  resolution  to  the 
effect  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  suitable  terri- 

18.  Poore,  Parley's  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  pp.  354-355. 

19.  Ibid,  p.  370. 

20.  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  I,  p.  109. 

21.  Seward's  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  444. 

22.  Senate  Doc.,  No.  18,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess. 

48 


torial  governments  for  California,  Deseret,  and  New  Mexico,  at 
that  session.23  It  is  not  clear  just  what  influence  this  resolution 
had,  but  the  Congressmen  bestirred  themselves.  A  bill  was  in 
troduced  in  the  House  for  the  organization  of  that  part  of  the 
Mexican  cession  east  of  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains  without 
slavery,24  and  separate  bills  were  introduced  in  the  Senate  for 
the  more  effectual  execution  of  the  fugitive  slave  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  and  for  the  reduction  of  the  limits  of  Texas  with 
her  consent.25  Here,  at  last,  were  the  main  sectional  issues 
before  Congress  in  the  form  of  bills.  Their  consideration  soon 
resulted  in  a  deadlock  that  shook  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Union. 

The  ensuing  struggle  waxed  more  fiercely  day  by  day. 
Stephens  wrote  to  his  brother  Linton,  January  21,  1850,  that 
the  South  had  ultimately  to  submit  or  fight,  and  that  if  he  were 
in  the  Georgia  Legislature  he  would  introduce  bills  for  the  pur 
pose  of  reorganizing  the  militia,  and  for  the  creation  of  armories, 
arsenals,  and  military  schools.26  The  aged  ex-Governor  Troup, 
who  had  successfully  defied  President  John  Quincy  Adams  at 
the  time  of  the  Indian  controversy,  had  recommended  a  similar 
arming  of  the  State  as  early  as  the  preceding  September.27 
General  Scott  thought  that  the  country  was  on  the  eve  of  a  civil 
war.28  Henry  Clay  wrote:  ''My  hopes  and  fears  alternate."29 
In  spite  of  all  manifestations  to  the  contrary,  there  were  those 
who  did  not  consider  the  situation  particularly  dangerous. 
Webster  wrote  Peter  Harvey,  February  14,  1850,  that  he  did  not 
fear  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  or  a  breaking  up  of  the  Govern 
ment.30  He  soon  after  changed  his  mind.  Benton  ridiculed  the 
idea  of  danger.31  Seward  regarded  threats  of  disunion  as  "too 
trivial  to  mention."32  Such  views  prompted  C.  S.  Morehead,  a 
Whig  Representative  from  Kentucky,  to  write  to  Governor  Crit- 


23.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  210. 

24.  Ibid,  p.  91. 

25.  Ibid,  pp.   165-171. 

26.  Johnson  and  Brown,  Life  of  A.  H.  Stephens,  pp.  243-245. 

27.  Harden,  Life  of  Troup,  Appendix,  p.  15. 

28.  Memoirs  of  General  Sherman,  Vol.  I,  p.  82. 

29.  Private  Correspondence,  Colton,  Last  Seven  Years  of  Henry  Clay,  p.  497. 

30.  Curtis,  Life  of  Webster,  Vol.  II,  p.  398. 

31.  Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  Vol.  II,  p.  749. 

32.  Seward's  Works,  Vol.  I,  p.  81.  - 

49 


tenden,  of  the  same  State,  March  30,  1850,  that  "Our  Northern 
friends  are  blind,  absolutely  blind,  to  the  real  dangers  by  which 
we  are  surrounded."33 

President  Taylor's  policy  was  supported  by  the  Whigs  and 
by  some  of  the  Democrats  at  the  North;  it  was  opposed  by  the 
Democrats  and  most  of  the  Whigs  of  the  South.34  The  advanced 
stand  that  the  Northern  wing  of  the  Whig  party  had  taken, 
under  the  leadership  of  Seward,  bid  fair  to  destroy  the  Whig 
organization.  Toombs  clearly  stated  the  situation  in  relation 
thereto  in  a  letter  to  Crittenden,  April  25,  1850.  The  substance 
of  this  letter  was  to  the  effect  that  during  the  past  summer  the 
whole  patronage  of  the  Government  had  been  thrown  into  the 
hands  of  Seward,  which  enabled  him  to  take  control  of  the  New 
York  organization,  and  force  the  Northern  Whigs  to  adopt  his 
extreme  anti-slavery  policy.  When  he  (Toombs)  returned  to 
Washington,  he  found  that  the  whole  Whig  party  expected  to 
pass  the  Proviso,  and  that  they  understood  the  President  would 
not  veto  it.  He  saw  General  Taylor  in  regard  to  the  matter, 
and,  while  the  latter  stated  he  had  given  and  would  give  no 
pledges  either  way,  he  gave  him  to  understand  that,  if  the  Proviso 
passed,  he  would  sign  it.  Toombs  stated  that  his  course  became 
instantly  fixed  to  oppose  it,  even  to  the  extent  of  a  dissolution 
of-4he  Union.35  Southern  Whigs  were  willing  to  admit  Cali 
fornia  with  its  free  Constitution,  but  they  wanted  specific  guar 
antees  protecting  property  in  slaves  in  the  rest  of  the  territory 
ceded  by  Mexico.  Less  they  were  unwilling  to  take.  Considera 
ble  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  upon  the  President  in  order  to 
make  him  conform  to  their  views,  but  he  remained  inflexible 
upon  the  subject.  In  reply  to  their  threats  of  dissolving  the 
Union,  in  case  he  persisted  in  his  adopted  policy,  he  declared 
that,  if  necessary,  he  would  himself  take  the  field  to  enforce  the 
laws  of  his  country,  and  that  if  any  of  them  were  taken  in  rebel 
lion,  they  would  be  hanged  with  as  little  mercy  as  he  had  hanged 
traitors  and  spies  during  the  Mexican  war.36 

At  this  threatening  juncture,  Henry  Clay  came  forward 
with  one  of  those  customary  schemes  for  compromise  that  have 


33.  Coleman,  Life  of  Crittenden,  Vol.  I,  p.  363. 

34.  Sargent,  Public  Men  and  Events,  Vol.  II,  p.  354. 

35.  Coleman,  Life  of  Crittenden,  Vol.  I,  pp.  364-366. 

36.  Memoir  of  Thurlow  Weed,  p.  177;  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol. 
I,  p.  134,  footnote  No.  2. 

50 


justly  earned  for  him  the  name  of  the  "Great  Pacificator." 
After  nearly  eight  years'  retirement  from  public  life,  he  had 
accepted  a  seat  in  the  Senate  at  the  opening  of  the  thirty-first 
Congress,  where,  to  quote  his  own  words,  he  intended  "to  be  a 
quiet  looker  on,  rarely  speaking;  and,  when  I  do,  endeavoring 
to  pour  oil  on  the  troubled  waters."37  At  the  beginning  of  the 
session,  he  had  asked  to  be  excused  from  serving  on  any  of  the 
standing  committees,  but  the  course  of  events  soon  caused  him 
to  take  a  more  active  part  in  the  proceedings.38  It  has  been 
intimated  that  revenge  for  the  treatment  he  had  received  at  the 
hands  of  the  Whig  party  was  his  chief  motive  in  entering  Con 
gress,39  but,  if  this  wrere  so,  certainly  patriotism  triumphed  over 
any  such  baser  feelings  in  the  end.  He  was  seventy-three  years 
of  age,  and  very  feeble.  No  longer  could  he  entertain  hopes  of 
becoming  President.  Moreover,  he  had  recently  allied  himself 
with  the  Church,  and  this  must  have  softened  his  thoughts 
towards  his  enemies.  Even  his  political  opponents  acknowledged 
the  purity  and  patriotism  of  his  motives.40  While  the  struggle 
was  fiercely  raging  over  the  territorial  bills,  he  introduced  into 
the  Senate,  January  29,  1850,  a  series  of  eight  resolutions  that  he 
offered  as  a  basis  for  settlement.41 

In  his  accompanying  remarks  Clay  made  no  claim  that  his 
project  would  prove  a  permanent  settlement  of  the  sectional 
difficulty.  It  contained,  he  believed,  about  an  equal  amount  of 
concession  and  forbearance  upon  both  sides ;  but  he  thought  he 
might  have  asked  a  more  liberal  and  extensive  concession  from 
the  free  than  from  the  slave  States.  As  to  why,  he  answered  as 
follows:  "With  you,  gentlemen  Senators  of  the  free  States, 
what  is  it?  An  abstraction,  a  sentiment — a  sentiment,  if  you 
please,  of  humanity  and  philanthropy — a  noble  sentiment,  when 
directed  rightly,  with  no  sinister  or  party  purposes ;  an  atrocious 
sentiment — a  detestable  sentiment — or  rather  the  abuse  of  it — 


37.  Letter  to  Thomal  B.  Stephenson,  Private  Correspondence,  Colton,  Last  Seven 
Years  of  Henry  Clay,  pp.  493-494. 

38.  Poore,  Perley's  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  p.  363. 

39.  He  regarded  the  presidential  office  as  rightfully  belonging  to  himself.      Poore 
writes:      "Indignant  at  the  treatment  which  he  had  received  from  the  Whig  party,  he 
stood  unsubdued,    and  so   far   from  retreating  from  those  who  had  deserted   him,   he 
intended  to  make  the  Taylor  administration  recall  its  pledges,  break  its  promises,   and 
become  national,  or  pro-slavery  Whigs."     Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  p.  364. 

40.  Colton,  Last  Seven  Years  of  Henry  Clay,  p.  133. 

41.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  246-247. 

51 


when  directed  to  the  accomplishment  of  unworthy  purposes 
.,  .  .  .  You  are  in  point  of  numbers,  however,  greater; 
and  greatness  and  magnanimity  should  ever  be  allied  .  .  ,,.  . 
/In  the  one  scale,  then,  we  behold  sentiment,  sentiment  alone ;  in 
the  other  property,  and  all  that  makes  life  desirable  and  happy.42" 
To  those  Southern  Congressmen  who  brought  forward  the 
charge  that  the  action  of  California  was  irregular  and  unauthor 
ized,  Clay  made  answer  that  Michigan  had  already  established 
the  precedent.  He  himself  was  opposed  to  the  action  of  Michi 
gan  at  the  time,  but  the  majority  thought  otherwise,  and,  "it 
must  be  in  candor  admitted  by  all  men,  that  California  has 
much  more  reason  to  do  what  she  has  done  unsanctioned  and  un 
authorized  by  a  previous  act  of  Congress,  than  Michigan  had 
to  do  what  she  did."43 

The  debate  on  the  Clay  compromise  measures  was  significant. 
It  marked  the  passing  of  the  old  party  leaders,  Calhoun,  Clay, 
and  Webster,  and  it  brought  into  greater  national  prominence 
the  two  new  Northern  members  of  the  Senate,  Seward  and  Chase. 

Clay  spoke  in  favor  of  his  resolution  on  the  5th  and  6th  of 
February,  1850.  He  was  so  feeble  at  the  time  that  he  could  not 
mount  the  steps  of  the  capitol  without  leaning  upon  the  arm  of 
a  companion.  Never,  said  he,  had  he  upon  any  former  occasion 
risen  under  feelings  of  such  painful  solicitude.  Never  before 
had  he  been  so  anxious.  "Sir,  at  this  moment  we  have  in  the 
legislative  bodies  of  this  Capitol,  and  in  the  Senate,  twenty  odd 
furnaces  in  full  blast,  emiting  heat  and  passion,  and  intemper 
ance,  and  diffusing  them  throughout  the  extent  of  this  broad 
land."  He  implored  the  Senators  to  repress  the  ardor  of  their 
passions,  to  look  to  the  interests  of  their  country,  and  to  listen 
to  the  voice  of  reason.  He  next  called  attention  to  the  matters 
in  controversy,  which  he  thought  should  be  settled  by  mutual 
concessions.  Such  an  adjustment,  he  believed,  was  pointed  out 
by  his  resolutions,  and  he  proceeded  to  take  up  and  explain  each 
one  in  turn.  In  conclusion  he  spoke  as  follows:  "Finally,  Mr. 
President,  and  in  conclusion,  I  implore  as  the  best  blessing  which 
Heaven  can  bestow  upon  me,  upon  earth,  that  if  the  direful  event 


42.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  246. 

43.  Ibid,  p.  244. 

52 


of  a  dissolution  of  this  Union  is  to  happen,  I  shall  not  survive 
to  behold  the  sad  and  heartrending  spectacle."44 

Calhoun  made  reply  March  4.  He  was  so  ill  that  his  speech 
was  read  for  him  by  Senator  Mason,  of  Virginia.  Northern  ag 
gression,  it  set  forth,  had  caused  the  strained  political  situation 
by  overthrowing  the  equilibrium  between  the  sections,  and  wealth 
had  been  transferred  from  the  South  to  the  North  by  means  of 
the  protective  tariff — a  view  held  by  Calhoun  since  the  tariff 
discussion  of  the  twenties.  The  immigrants  attracted  to  the 
Northern  States  had  changed  the  character  of  the  national  gov 
ernment  from  a  Federal  republic  to  a  consolidated  democracy, 
and  had  begun  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question.  As  events 
were  moving  it  would  not  require  a  secession  of  the  South  to 
dissolve  the  Union.  Agitation  alone  would  dissolve  it.  The 
strongest  cords  that  bound  the  sections  were  the  religious,  but 
they  had  begun  to  snap.  The  great  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  divided ;  likewise  the  Baptist  Church ;  and  the  Presbyterian 
Church  was  likely  to  do  so  if  the  agitation  continued.  It  was 
undeniable  that  the  Union  was  in  danger.  Neither  the  proposed 
compromise  nor  the  executive  plan  could  save  it.  As  to  what 
could  be  done  to  save  it,  Calhoun  stated  that  it  could  only  be 
done  by  conceding  an  equal  right  in  the  Territories  to  the  South ; 
by  a  more  faithful  fulfillment  of  the  constitutional  stipulations 
in  relation  to  fugitive  slaves ;  by  a  cessation  of  the  slavery  agita 
tion  ;  and  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  which  would  re 
store  to  the  South  the  power  she  possessed  of  protecting  herself 
before  the  equilibrium  between  the  sections  was  destroyed.45  He 
did  not  then  explain  the  nature  of  this  amendment,  but,  in  a 
political  essay,  published  after  his  death,  its  plan  and  purpose 
was  set  forth.46 

Webster  made  his  famous  effort  in  favor  of  compromise 
March  7.  His  speech  opened  as  follows:  "I  wish  to  speak  to 
day,  not  as  a  Massachusetts  man,  nor  as  a  Northern  man,  but  as 
an  American."  He  spoke  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
Nature  had  excluded  slavery  from  the  acquired  territory,  and 
"I  would  not  take  pains  uselessly  to  reaffirm  an  ordinance  of 


44.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  pp.  115-127. 

45.  Ibid,  pp.   451-455. 

46.  Discourse   on   the    Constitution    and    Government    of    the    United    States,    Cal- 
houn's  Works,  Vol.  I,  p.  392. 

53 


nature,  nor  to  re-enact  the  will  of  God.  And  I  would  put  in  no 
Wilmot  proviso,  for  the  purpose  of  a  taunt  or  a  reproach. ' '  The 
above  quotation  gives  the  gist  of  the  whole  speech.  In  the  mat 
ter  of  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves,  Webster  thought  that 
there  was  justice  in  the  complaints  of  the  South,  and  that  the 
North  was  in  the  wrong.  In  conclusion  he  called  upon  the  Sen 
ate  and  the  country  to  come  into  the  light  of  day  "instead  of 
dwelling  in  those  caverns  of  darkness,  instead  of  groping  with 

those  ideas  so  full  of  all  that  is  horrid  and  horrible 

Let  us  make  our  generation  one  of  the  strongest  and  brightest 
links  in  that  golden  chain  which  is  destined,  I  fondly  believe,  to 
grapple  in  the  people  of  all  the  States  to  this  Constitution  for 
ages  to  come."47 

Webster's  speech  gave  offense  to  the  more  radical  anti-slav 
ery  men  of  Massachusetts,  and  it  alienated  many  of  his  old 
friends.48  Henry  Wilson  declared  that  his  speech  was  Southern 
in  its  tone,  argument,  aim,  and  end.49  Bowditch,  of  Boston, 
charged  that  he  had  deceived  and  wheedled  his  best  friends.50 
Giddings  wrote  from  Ohio:  "By  his  speech  a  blow  was  struck 
at  freedom  and  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  free  States  which 
no  Southern  man  could  have  given, r>1  and  it  is  probable  that  this 
was  the  feeling  of  a  majority  of  the  anti-slavery  men  at  the 
North.  Not  one  of  the  New  England  Whigs  in  Congress  agreed 
with  Webster/''2  which  was  natural  enough  considering  the  stand 
that  party  had  taken  in  regard  to  slavery.  It  was  openly  charged 
that  the  speech  was  a  bold  bid  for  Southern  support  for  the 


47.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  pp.  269-276. 

48.  Sargent,   Public  Men  and   Events,   Vol.   II,  p.   362;   Bowditch,   Life  and  Cor 
respondence    of    Henry    Ingersoll    Bowditch,    Vol.    I,    pp.    203-204.      Bowditch    wrote: 
"His   speech   was   a   mighty   downfall   for  him.   .   .   .   His   support   of   the    'Compromise 
Measures,'  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  his  telling  us  to  'conquer  our  prejudices,'  and  sup 
port  all  those  damnable  proceedings,   aroused  in  us  all  the  utmost  distress  and  opposi 
tion.      We  were  prepared  to  do  almost  anything  but  tamely  submit  to  the  carrying  back 
of  the  slave,  but  we  had  no  organization  to  meet  such  an  event." 

49.  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Vol.  II,  p.  254. 

50.  Bowditch  wrote:      "At  the  time  of  preparing  for  his  7th  of  March  speech,  he 
wrote  to  his  intimate  friend,  J.  T.   Stevenson,   Esq.,   to  know  'how  far  he  could  go  in 
behalf  of  freedom  and  be  sustained  by  the  North.'     The  reply  was,  'Take  the  highest 
ground    in    behalf   of   freedom' ;    and    when    the   hour    for   Mr.    Webster    to    speak   had 
arrived,    Stevenson   said  to  my  brother    (J.   I.    B.),   at  his  office   in   State   Street,    'Oh, 
how   Webster   is  giving  it   now   to   Southern   insolence.'      So   entirely   had   Webster   de 
ceived  and  wheedled  his  best  friends."     Bowditch,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Henry 
Ingersoll  Bowditch,   Vol.   I,  p.   203. 

51.  Giddings,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  324. 

52.  Curtis,  Life  of  Webster,  Vol.  II. 

54 


Presidency.1'3  Color  is  lent  to  the  above  charge  if  assertions,  said 
to  have  been  made  by  Thaddeus  Stevens  and  Joshua  R.  Giddings, 
after  the  decease  of  Webster,  are  true.  They  claimed,  it  is 
alleged,  that  Webster  had  prepared  a  speech,  the  manuscript  of 
which  they  had  both  read,  which  was  a  powerful  vindication  of 
Northern  sentiment  upon  the  compromise  measure,  especially 
the  fugitive  slave  bill,  but  that  he  had  later  put  it  aside  and  pre 
pared  the  one  delivered.  Still,  the  same  author,  who  reported  the 
above,  tells  us  that  Webster  was  reported,  by  Theodore  Parker, 
as  having  said  to  a  fellow  Senator  on  the  morning  of  March  7 : 
' '  I  have  my  doubts  that  the  speech  I  am  going  to  make  will  ruin 
me."54 

In  his  speech  of  March  11,  1850,  Seward  put  himself  on  rec 
ord  as  opposed  to  all  compromise  with  the  South.  He  declared 
that  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  necessary  for  the  exclusion  of 
slavery  from  New  Mexico  and  California,  and  denied  that  the 
Constitution  recognized  chattel  slavery.  In  regard  to  the  fugi 
tive  slave  question,  he  said :  "I  say  to  the  slave  States,  you  are 
entitled  to  no  more  stringent  laws,  and  that  such  laws  would  be 
useless."  During  this  speech  he  announced  his  famous  "Higher 
Law"  doctrine,  which  became  the  slogan  of  the  anti-slavery  peo 
ple  later  on.  "We  hold,"  he  said,  "no  arbitrary  authority  over 
anything,  whether  acquired  lawfully  or  seized  by  usurpation. 
The  Constitution  regulates  our  stewardship;  the  Constitution 
devotes  the  domain  to  union,  to  justice,  to  defense,  to  welfare, 
and  to  liberty.  But  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution, 
which  regulates  our  authority  over  the  domain,  and  devotes  it  to 
the  same  noble  purposes."55 

Chase,  on  March  26  and  27,  maintained  that  it  was  the  duty 
of  Congress  not  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States  where  it 
already  existed,  but  to  prohibit  its  spread  to  the  Territories.  As 
to  chattel  slavery,  he  agreed  with  Seward  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  did  not  recognize  it,  and  he  declared  that 
the  Federal  ratio  explained  the  attachment  of  the  South  to  the 


53.  Bowditch,    Life    and    Correspondence    of    Henry    Ingersoll    Bowditch,    Vol.    I, 
p.  203. 

54.  Poore,   Perley's  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  p.   365.     The  best  defense  of  Webster 
is  to  be  found  in  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  I,  pp.   157-161. 

55.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,   1  Sess.,  Appendix,  pp.  262-269. 

55 


institution.56  This  speech  is  of  interest  because  of  the  fact  that 
it  expressed  the  sentiments  of  the  anti-slavery  men  of  Ohio. 

Seward  and  Chase  had  stated  the  position  of  the  younger 
group  of  statesmen  who  were  rapidly  coming  into  prominence 
£1  the  North ;  during  the  same  debate  Jefferson  Davis  advanced 
/the  views  of  the  Calhoun  followers  among  the  rising  group  of 
young  statesmen  at  the  South.  Davis  had  entered  the  Senate 
from  Mississippi  soon  after  the  Mexican  war,  in  which  he  had 
served  with  distinction,  and,  after  the  death  of  Calhoun,  March 
31,  1850,  he  aspired  to  the  leadership  of  the  South.57  In  a 
speech,  during  the  debate  above  referred  to,  he  announced  his 
position.  To  quote  Mr.  Rhodes,  he  "translated  into  action  the 
logic  of  his  master,"  Mr.  Calhoun.  What  Davis  preferred  above 
all  was  non-intervention  of  Congress  in  the  Territories,  but,  in 
default  of  that,  he  would  agree  to  the  extension  of  the  Missouri 
)  Compromise  line  of  36°  30'  to  the  Pacific,58 — a  method  of  set 
tlement  which  we  remember  President  Polk  and  others  had  advo 
cated  at  the  time  of  the  Oregon  controversy.  Davis  claimed  that 
he  did  not  urge  the  matter  because  of  any  inherent  fitness  in 
that  line,  but,  because  it  had  acquired,  in  the  public  mind,  a 
prescriptive  respect  which  it  seemed  unwise  to  disregard.59 

After  the  introduction  of  Clay's  resolutions  there  was  a 
steadily  growing  sentiment  in  favor  of  compromise  among  the 
more  moderate  members  of  Congress.  On  motion  of  Senator 
Foote,  of  Mississippi,  February  25,  1850,  it  was  decided  "To  re 
fer  to  a  select  committee  of  six  members  from  the  North,  and 
six  members  from  the  South,  and  one  member  to  be  by  them 
chosen,  with  instructions  to  exert  themselves  for  the  purpose  of 
maturing  a  scheme  of  compromise  for  the  adjustment  of  all  the 
pending  questions  growing  out  of  the  institution  of  slavery,  and 
to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise. '  '60  To  this  committee  Clay 's  reso 
lutions  were  referred  on  April  18.61  Bills  were  reported,  May  8, 

56.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  pp.  468-480. 

57.  Poore,  Perley's  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  p.  366;   Elaine,  Twenty  Years  of  Con 
gress,  Vol.  I,  p.  89. 

58.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sees.,  pp.  149-154,  286-287. 

59.  Jefferson   Davis,    Ex-President  of   the   Confederate   States,    a   Memoir   by   His 
Wife,  Vol.  I,  p.  443. 

60.  The   motion    was  made   February   21,    but   it   was   not   passed  until  the   25th. 
Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.,  pp.  418-421. 

61.  The    committee    consisted    of    Clay,    as    chairman,    Senators    Webster,    Phelps, 
Cooper,  Whigs;   and  Cass,   Bright,  Democrats,  from  free  States;   King,   Downs,   Demo 
crats;  and  Mangum,  Bell  and  Berrien,  Whigs,  from  slave  States. 

56 


which  contained  in  substance  about  all  that  Clay  desired.  The 
first  of  these,  nicknamed  the  ''Omnibus"  bill,  provided  for  the 
admission  of  California,  for  the  organization  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico,  and  for  an  offer  to  the  State  of  Texas  to  fix  its  bounda 
ries  so  as  not  to  include  what  had  been  claimed  of  New  Mexico, 
and  for  the  payment  of  a  sum  of  money  by  the  United  States. 
Others  provided  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  for  an  amendment  to  a  Senate  bill 
providing  for  the  more  effective  return  of  fugitive  slaves.62 

The  Omnibus  bill  was  debated  in  the  Senate  until  August. 
It  was  opposed  by  the  administration  through  its  newspapers, 
through  declarations  of  the  Cabinet  members,  and  the.  unre 
served  expressions  of  the  President.63  It  was  opposed  by  the 
Northern  Whigs  and  Free-Soilers,  who  thought  it  surrendered 
too  much  to  the  slave  power;  and  by  extreme  Southern  Demo 
crats,  who  considered  it  a  complete  surrender  of  the  slave-hold 
er's  right  to  hold  his  property  in  slaves  wherever  he  might  choose 
to  settle.  By  August  1,  it  was  so  amended  that  very  little  of  the 
original  bill  remained.64 

Between  June  and  August,  1850,  two  events  took  place  that 
prepared,  to  a  greater  extent  than  any  of  the  other  influences 
that  were  at  work,  the  way  for  compromise.  The  first  was  the 
convention  of  delegates  from  nine  of  the  Southern  States  that 
met  at  Nashville,  Tennessee,  June  3,  1850.65  No  action  of  any 
lasting  importance  resulted,  but  the  spirit  that  caused  its  as 
sembling  alarmed  moderate  men  in  both  sections,  and  made  them 
desire  a  settlement.  The  second  was  the  elevation  of  Fillmore  to 
the  Presidency;  General  Taylor  having  died  on  July  9.66  The 
succession  of  Fillmore  put  an  end  to  Seward  's  influence.67  Presi- 


62.  Report  of  Committee,  No.  123    (Senate),  31  Cong.,  1  Sess. 

63.  Elaine,  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  Vol.  I,  pp.  94-95. 

64.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  1504. 

65.  Benton,   Thirty   Years'    View,   Vol.    II,   pp.    780-785;    Rhodes,    History   of   the 
United  States,  Vol.  I,  pp.  173-174. 

66.  Poore,  Perley's  Reminiscences,  Vol.  1,  p.  384;   Elaine,  Twenty  Years  of  Con 
gress,  Vol.  I,  p.  95;  Hilliard,   Politics  and  Pen  Pictures,  p.  231.     Milliard  states  that 
he  had  a  conversation  with  Webster  in  the  rotunda  of  the  Capitol,   a  few  days  after 
President  Taylor's  funeral,   and  that  Webster  said  to  him:      "Mr.  Hilliard,  if  General 
Taylor  had  lived,  we  should  have  had  civil  war." 

67.  "The  unexpected  death  of  General  Taylor  was  an  element   with   which   even 
Mr.  Seward  had  never  taken  into  account,  and  the  first  consequence  was  undisguised 
confusion   among  the  supporters  of  the  administration.      The  members  of  the  Cabinet 
promptly  tendered  their  resignations,  and  it  was  plainly  visible  that  the  sudden  removal 
of  the   President  had   checkmated  the  plans  so   carefully   made,    and   forced   the   chief 
player  to  feel  the  bitterness  of  political  death."     Poore,  Perleys'  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I, 
p.  381. 

57 


dent  Taylor's  Cabinet  members  immediately  resigned,  Webster 
was  made  Secretary  of  State,  and  he  used  the  power  and  in 
fluence  of  his  office  to  bring  about  the  acceptance  of  the  com 
promise  measures.68 

President  Fillmore  sent  a  special  message  to  Congress,  Au 
gust  6,  1850,  accompanied  by  a  letter  from  the  Governor  of 
Texas,  which  stated  that  Texas  was  about  to  take  armed  posses 
sion  of  the  disputed  territory  of  New  Mexico.  He  called  atten 
tion  to  the  urgent  necessity  of  settling  the  boundary  question 
before  the  end  of  the  session.69  Both  Houses  took  up  the  matter 
in  earnest,  and  before  the  end  of  September  the  various  meas- 
/"iires,  including  the  Omnibus  bill,  became  laws.70  They  were 
passed  in  most  cases  by  decisive  majorities. 


68.  Sargent,   Public  Men  and  Events,  Vol.   II,  p.   372;   Poore,   Parley's  Reminis 
cences,  Vol.  I,  pp.  381-382. 

69.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  V,  pp.  67-73. 

70.  Bills  for  admitting  California,   and  for  organizing  New  Mexico,    and  settling 
the  Texas  claim,  on  September  9;  the  Utah  bill,  September  16;  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act, 
September   18;    and  the  bill   concerning  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of   Columbia, 
September  20.     See  Acts  of  Congress,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  43,  51,  52,  64,  71. 


$8 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   FIRST   SESSION   OF   THE   NASHVILLE   CONVEN 
TION. 


Calhoun  seized  upon  the  occasion  offered  by  the  controversy 
over  slavery  expansion  in  order  to  further  his  plan  of  coopera 
tion  upon  the  part  of  the  Southern  States.  To  the  casual  ob 
server  of  events  at  the  time,  his  influence  was  not  readily  dis 
cernible  because  it  was  exerted  behind  the  direct  gaze  of  the 
public,  while  he  kept  his  own  personality  very  much  in  the 
background.1  As  we  have  already  seen,  he  kept  in  close  touch 
with  his  followers,  men  of  influence  scattered  throughout  the 
South,  by  means  of  correspondence;  and  they,  in  turn,  spread 
his  teachings  and  carried  on  a  campaign  for  the  purpose  of 
educating  the  public  mind  to  the  necessity  of  united  action 
against  Northern  aggression.2  The  result  was  the  assembling 
of  the  Nashville  Convention,  which,  as  pointed  out  in  the  fore 
going  chapter,  was  one  of  the  influences  that  finally  brought 
about  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures.  Public  ignor 
ance  of  the  object  of  this  convention  led  to  exaggerated  rumors 
that  the  Southern  delegates  were  assembled  for  the  purpose  of 
dissolving  the  Union,  and  moderate  men,  North  and  South, 
exerted  their  utmost  influence  in  favor  of  a  sectional  settlement. 
The  Nashville  Convention  effected  the  territorial  struggle  by 
reason  of  its  portent ;  as  a  means  of  uniting  the  South  it  proved 
a  total  failure. 

Calhoun 's  public  career  is  interesting.  In  the  period  imme 
diately  following  the  war  of  1812,  he  had  been  an  ardent  nation 
alist,3  but  a  transition  to  strict  State  sovereignty  views  took  place 
at  the  time  of  Southern  complaints  against  the  protective  tariff 
legislation  of  the  late  twenties.  In  his  new  role  he  taught  the 
philosophy  and  supplied  the  arguments  for  ambitious  followers, 


1.  "I  want  no  reward,  no  prominence,  or  even  distinction.  If  the  thing  is  done, 
I  am  satisfied,  let  it  be  done  by  whom  it  may."  Calhoun  to  James  H.  Hammond. 
Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  779. 

2.  See  Chapter  II,  pp.  32-34. 

3.  See   his   speech   on   internal    improvements,    delivered    in   the   House   of   Repre 
sentatives,    February   4,    1817.      Annals   of   Cong.,    1816-1817,    14   Cong.,   2    Sess.,   pp. 
851-870. 

59 


some  of  whom  were  willing  to  take  a  step  in  advance  of  their 
leader  and  force  the  sectional  issues  to  the  arbitrament  of  arms.4 
While  Vice-President  he  protested  against  the  protective  tariff 
principle  through  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  in  1828, 
when  that  State  adopted  his  Exposition  and  Protest,  that  formed 
the  immediate  basis  for  Nullification  in  1832.  The  arguments 
advanced  by  Hayne  in  his  famous  debate  with  Webster,  in  1830, 
mark  the  former  as  a  disciple  of  Calhoun.  At  this  time  Calhoun 
was  ostensibly  opposing  protective  tariff  legislation,  but  in 
reality  he  was  looking  far  beyond  that  measure.  With  prophetic 
vision  he  saw  that  the  time  was  coming  when  the  South  would 
have  no  control  over  national  legislation,  owing  to  the  more 
rapid  growth  of  the  North.  In  order  to  conserve  the  power  of 
the  slaveholding  section  in  Congress,  he  set  himself  to  the  task 
of  devising  some  plan  whereby  it  might  be  accomplished  with 
out  endangering  the  Union  of  the  States.  In  the  seclusion  of  his 
study  he  matured  a  philosophical  theory  of  government3  that, 
in  his  opinion,  would  produce  the  desired  result  if  put  into  prac 
tice.  It  required  united  action  upon  the  part  of  the  South  for 
its  accomplishment,  and  in  order  to  gain  the  desired  unity  he 
regarded  a  convention  of  the  Southern  States  as  indispensable.6 
Once  decided  upon  this  plan,  he  bent  every  energy  to  its  accom 
plishment,  it  was  the  absorbing  purpose  of  his  conscious  hours,7 
and  it  furnishes  us  with  a  key  by  means  of  which  we  are  enabled 
to  interpret  his  Senate  resolutions  of  February  19,  1847,  and  the 
Address  to  the  South,  not  to  mention  his  speeches  in  and  out  of 


4.  Calhoun  did  not  advocate  actual  secession,  except  as  a  last  resort,  the  neces 
sity  for  which  he  could  never  bring  himself  to  acknowledge  until  he  was  on  his  death 
bed.      Even    then   he    did    not   mention    the    word.      A    few    days   before    his    death    he 
dictated  a  series  of  resolutions  to  Joseph  A.  Scoville,  the  following  one  of  which  seems 
to  suggest  it:      "Resolved,  That  the  time  has  arrived  when  the  said  States  owe   it  to 
themselves   and  the   other   States  comprising  the  Union  to   settle   fully   and  forever   all 
the  questions  at  issue  between  them."      Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  787. 

5.  See  his  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United  States, 
Calhoun's  Works,  Vol.  I. 

6.  "I  see  no  hope  of  bringing  the  North  to  a  sense  of  justice  but  by  our  united 
action,  and  for  that  purpose  a  convention  of  the  South  is  indispensable.     To  that  point 
our  efforts  should  be  directed.      The  first  step  towards  it  is  to  put  an  end  to  the  old 
party  divisions,  which  might  be  effected  by  an  understanding  between  a  few  prominent 
leaders  on  both  sides,   and  short  and  well- written  articles  through  the  leading  presses 
of   both   parties,   showing  the  folly  and  danger  of  continuing  our  party  warfare  when 
our   existance   is   at   stake."      To   Andrew   Pickens   Calhoun,   July   24,    1849.      Calhoun 
Correspondence,  p.  769. 

7.   ...   "he  was  unfortunate  in  always  having  the  great  powers  of  his  mind  con 
centrated  on  one  subject  at  a  time."      B.  F.  Perry's  Reminiscences,  p.  47. 

60 


Congress  during  the  period  1847-1850.  His  correspondence 
was  directed  to  the  same  end,  and  he  had  not  lacked  the  cooper 
ation  of  a  sympathetic  press.8  An  important  part  of  his  pro 
gram  was  the  establishment  of  the  Southern  Press  at  Washing 
ton  in  1850, — a  newspaper  project  made  possible  by  a  sum  of 
$30,000,  donated  by  the  signers  of  the  Southern  Address  and 
their  adherents.9  From  the  first  he  had  realized  the  necessity 
of  some  burning  issue  to  serve  as  the  basis  for  Southern  union. 
By  the  year  1833  he  clearly  saw  that  the  South  could  never  be 
united  sufficiently  on  the  tariff,  and,  the  slavery  question  be- 
comirfg  of  national  importance,  he  shifted  to  it  about  the  year 
1835.10 

Calhoun  recommended,  April  33,  1849,  that  a  States  Rights 
Convention,  about  to  assemble  at  Columbia,  South  Carolina, 
adopt  measures  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  convention  of  the 
Southern  States;11  but  his  native  State  never  issued  the  call, 
probably  on  account  of  the  recollections  of  the  odium  that  it  had 
incurred  by  reason  of  the  Nullification  episode.  Later  on  he 
had  hopes  that  Alabama  could  be  induced  to  act,  and  Atlanta, 
Georgia,  was  suggested  as  being  a  good  place  for  the  meeting.12 
His  efforts  were  not  wasted,  however,  for  initial  action  towards 
the  fulfillment  of  his  plans  was  taken  by  the  State  of  Missis 
sippi.  The  appeal  to  the  South,  through  the  address  issued  by 
the  Southern  Congressmen,  in  January,  1849,  aroused  the  peo 
ple  of  that  State.13  In  May  of  that  same  year,  a  meeting  of  the 
citizens  of  the  city  of  Jackson,  issued  a  call  to  the  people,  re 
questing  them  to  elect  delegates  to  a  State  convention,  to  be  held 


8.  In  a  letter  to  Andrew  Pickens  Calhoun,  July  24,   1849,  Calhoun  mentions  an 
article  of  his  that  would  be  published  "in  all  our  papers."      Calhoun  Correspondence, 
p.  769. 

9.  Benton,    Thirty   Years'    View,    Vol.    II,    p.    781;    also   see   Calhoun's  letters   to 
Duff  Green,  March,   1847.  for  his  earlier  interest  in  the  establishment  of  such  a  news 
paper.      Calhoun  Correspondence,  pp.  718,  722. 

10.  Benton  states  that  Calhoun  told  his  South  Carolina  friends,  after  his  return 
from  Congress,  in  1833,  "That  the  South  could  never  be  united  against  the  North  on 
the  tariff  question — that   the   sugar   interests   of   Louisiana   would   keep   her   out — and 
that  the  basis  of  Southern  union  must  be  shifted  to  the  slave  question."      This  policy 
was    formally    inaugurated   by    him    in    1835.      Benton,    Thirty   Years'    View,    Vol.    II, 
p.  786.      Calhoun  wrote  to  James  Edward  Calhoun,   September  23,   1835  :      "I  see  my 
way  clearly  on  the  slave  question,  and  I  do  not  fear  an  entire  triumph  on  our  own 
conditions;  to  be  followed  by  unbounded  prosperity  in  the  South  and  a  universal  rise 
in  prosperity  of  every  kind."     Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  346. 

11.  Calhoun  to  J.  H.  Means,  April  13,   1849,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.   766. 

12.  Calhoun  to  Andrew  Pickens  Calhoun.    July  24,    1849,  Ibid,   p.   769. 

13.  Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  February  2,  1850. 

61 


the  following  October,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  threat 
ening  relations  between  the  North  and  the  South.14  It  is  signifi 
cant  that  the  proceedings,  of  this  meeting  were  sent  to  Calhoun, 
and  that  he  was  requested  to  advise  the  people  of  Mississippi 
with  regard  to  the  proper  course  for  them  to  pursue  at  the  Octo 
ber  convention.15  His  reply,  addressed  to  Colonel  G.  S.  Tarpley, 
and  bearing  date  of  July  9,  1849,  stated  that,  in  his  opinion,  a 
Southern  convention  was  all  that  could  save  them,  and  that 
could  not  if  much  longer  delayed.  By  reason  of  after  develop- 
tments,  the  great  object  of  a  Southern  convention  can  best  be 
/given  in  Calhoun 's  own  words.  It  was,  said  he,  "to  put  forth  in 
a  solemn  manner  the  causes  of  our  grievances  in  an  address  to 
the  other  States,  and  to  admonish  them,  in  a  solemn  manner,  as 
to  the  consequences  which  must  follow,  if  they  should  not  be  re 
dressed,  and  to  take  measures  preparatory  to  it,  in  case  they 
should  not  be.  The  call  should  be  addressed  to  all  those  who  are 
desirous  to  save  the  Union  and  our  institutions,  and  who,  in 
the  alternative,  should  it  be  forced  on  us,  of  submission  or  dis 
solving  the  partnership,  would  prefer  the  latter." 

All  movements,  he  continued,  should  look  forward  to  a  con 
tention,  and  "For  that  purpose,  every  Southern  State  ought  to 

|  be  organized  with  a  central  committee,  and  one  in  each  county. 

\  Ours  is  already.16  It  is  indispensable  to  produce  concert  and 
prompt  action.  In  the  meantime,  firm  and  resolute  resolutions 
ought  to  be  adopted  by  yours  and  such  meetings  as  may  take 
place  before  the  assembling  of  the  Legislature  in  the  fall.  They, 
when  they  meet,  ought  to  take  up  the  subject  in  the  most  solemn 
and  impressive  manner."  Mississippi  was  advised  to  take  the 
lead.17 


14.  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  p.  174;  Garner,  The  First  Struggle 
Over  Secession  in  Mississippi,  Pubg.  Miss.  Hist.  Soc.,  Vol  X,  p.  90. 

15.  For  the  letter  to  Calhoun  see  Foote's  speech,  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
Appendix,  p.   52. 

16.  It  appears  that  the  organization  of  South  Carolina  along  the  above-mentioned 
lines   was  owing  to   Calhoun's   suggestion.      In   a  letter  to  John   H.    Means,    April    13, 
1849,    advising   the  latter   as  to   what  action   a    States   Rights   convention   should   take 
towards  bringing  about  a  Southern  convention,  he  wrote:      "It  seems  to  me   ...   that 
the  organization  of  our  own  and  the  other   Southern   States  is   an   indispensable   step, 
and  for  that  and  other  purposes  there  ought  to  be  an  able  committee  appointed,  having 
its   center   in   Charleston,   or   Columbia,   and   vested   with   power   to   take   such   steps   as 
may  be  deemed  necessary."      Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  766. 

17.  Cong.    Globe,    32    Cong.,    1    Sess.,    Appendix,    p.    282;    Daily    National    Intel 
ligencer,  June  4.   1850. 

62 


How  faithfully  Calhoun 's  suggestions  were  carried  out  the 
following  extract  from  a  speech  delivered  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  March  9,  1852,  by  Senator  Wilcox,  of  Mississippi,  shows: 
"The  convention  was  held  in  October,  as  he  advised.  Missis 
sippi  took  the  lead.  A  central  committee  was  organized,  and  an 
effort  made  to  appoint  them  in  the  counties.  Firm  and  resolute 
resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  October  convention.  The  Legis 
lature  took  up  the  subject  in  the  most  solemn  and  impressive 
manner.  It  reserved  in  the  treasury  the  sum  of  $220,000,  to 
enable  the  Nashville  Convention  to  take  the  necessary  steps 
spoken  of  by  Mr.  Calhoun."18 

Nor  was  the  Tarpley  letter  the  only  means  employed  by  Cal 
houn  to  influence  the  action  of  the  State  convention  in  Missis 
sippi.  He  approached  Senator  Henry  S.  Foote  in  the  matter 
and  not  without  success,  for  on  September  25,  1849,  the  latter 
wrote  him  that  several  leading  gentlemen  of  both  the  two  great 
political  parties  had  promised  him  to  act  upon  the  Calhoun  sug 
gestion,  relative  to  a  Southern  convention,  at  the  approaching 
State  convention.19  The  movement  was  general  in  Mississippi, 
both  Whigs  and  Democrats  giving  it  their  support.  One  of  its 
leading  spirits  was  William  L.  Sharkey,  a  Whig,  and  a  strong 
Union  man.20  So  deeply  was  the  public  mind  stirred  with  a 
sense  of  impending  danger  that  party  lines  were  for  the  time 
forgotten. 

The  State  convention  met  on  the  first  Monday  in  October, 
1849,  and  called  a  general  convention  of  the  slaveholding  States 
to  meet  at  Nashville,  Tennessee,  on  the  first  Monday  in  June, 
1850. 21  Some  of  the  delegates  favored  Washington  as  the  place 
of  meeting,  but  Nashville  was  finally  decided  upon  as  being 
more  central  in  location.  Mississippi  was  to  be  represented  by 
twelve  delegates,  six  each  from  the  Whig  and  Democratic  par- 


is.  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  p.  282. 

19.  Calhoun  Correspondence,  pp.   1204-1206. 

20.  "Two  of  your  letters  to  General  Foote  were  enclosed  to  me,  to  be  read  accord 
ing  to  my  discretion,  on  the  question  of  the  crisis.      That  suggesting  a  Southern  con 
vention    was    shown    by    me   to   our   mutual   friends,    Ch.    Justice    Sharkey    and    Judge 
Clifton,   who,   although  Whigs,   are  well  up  to  Southern  rights.      We  adopted  the  idea 
with  ardor,  but  all  concurred  in  opinion  that  if  we  should  proceed  on  a  course  recom 
mended  from  South  Carolina  we  should  fail."      A.  Hutchinson  to  Calhoun,   October  5, 
1849.      Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  1206. 

21.  Weekly  National  Intelligencer,   February   2,    1850. 

63 


ties."  The  State  Legislature,  by  resolution,  January,  1850, 
adopted  the  proceedings  of  the  Jackson  meeting  and  October 
convention,  and  issued  the  call  to  the  States.23 

Concerning  the  calling  of  the  Nashville  Convention,  and  in 
reference  to  the  part  played  by  Calhoun,  Benton  wrote:  "That 
convention  was  called — the  same  which  had  been  designated  in 
the  first  manifesto,  entitled  The  Crisis,  published  in  the  Charles 
ton  Mercury  in  1835,  and  what  had  been  repulsed  from  Nash 
ville  in  1844.  Fifteen  years  of  assiduous  labor  produced  what 
could  not  be  started  in  1835,  and  what  had  been  repulsed  in 
1844."24  Benton  is  right,  Calhoun  had  labored  for  a  convention 
for  several  years,  but  it  appears  that  he,  as  well  as  most  others, 
did  not  understand  Calhoun 's  object  in  having  the  convention 
meet.  We  give  a  few  opinions.  A  Wilmington,  North  Carolina, 
newspaper,  in  discussing  the  convention,  expressed  the  hope  that 
there  would  be  no  more  barren  addresses,  and  declared  the 
remedy  for  Southern  ills  to  be  a  Confederacy,  with  a  capital  at 
Asheville,  or  somewhere  else  on  the  mountains  where  the  lines 
of  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee  and  Vir 
ginia  meet.25  The  South  Carolinian  stated  that  "the  organiza 
tion  of  a  presidential  party  and  the  adoption  of  a  candidate  is 
to  be  considered  an  appropriate  end  and  summary  of  the  delibe 
rations  of  the  convention ' ' ;  and  the  Tennessee  newspaper  that 
quoted  the  above  extract  added,  by  way  of  comment,  that  the 
object  was  to  make  Mr.  Calhoun  the  head  of  such  a  party,  and  it 
asked  if  Tennessee  was  prepared  "to  hitch  herself  to  that  set 
trampled  under  foot  by  General  Jackson.26"  Another  Tennessee 
paper  made  the  conservative  and  more  correct  statement  that  the 
delegates  "were  expected  to  meet  together,  to  consult,  to  de 
liberate,  to  reason,  and  to  recommend  the  wisest  measures  for 
preserving  the  Union,  and  at  the  same  time  protecting  their 
rights  against  further  encroachments."27  Meanwhile,  Calhoun, 
who  of  all  others  was  best  qualified  to  explain  what  course  of 
action  the  convention  should  follow,  preserved  his  usual  silence, 


22.  A.  Hutchinson  to  Calhoun,  Calhoun  Correspondence,  p.  1206. 

23.  Laws  of  Mississippi,    1850,  pp.  521-526. 

24.  Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  Vol.  II,  p.  781. 

25.  Quoted  in  the  Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  February  2,   1850. 

26.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  February  9,  1849. 

27.  The  Daily  Union,  December  22,   1849. 

64 


in  so  far  as  the  general  public  was  concerned,  and  made  the  best 
of  every  opportunity  to  insure  full  delegations  at  Nashville.28 

South  Carolina,  as  was  to  be  expected,  received  the  Missis 
sippi  call  with  feelings  of  great  satisfaction,  and  proceeded  at 
once  to  the  election  of  delegates.  Georgia  and  Alabama  did  the 
same.  A  committee  of  the  Virginia  Legislature  expressed  a 
favorable  sentiment,  and  the  House  of  Delegates  of  Maryland, 
by  a  unanimous  vote,  expressed  a  willingness  to  be  represented 
at  Nashville.29  But  these  first  manifestations  by  no  means  indi 
cated  public  sentiment,  except  in  South  Carolina  and  in  Missis 
sippi.  The  action  of  the  Alabama  Legislature,  in  passing  the 
people  by  in  the  matter,  brought  forth  strong  condemnation 
from  the  press  of  the  State.30  The  newspapers  of  Virginia,  of 
both  political  parties,  failed  to  endorse  the  action  of  the  legis 
lative  committee;  and  the  region  beyond  the  mountains,  or 
which  is  now  West  Virginia,  was  decidedly  hostle  to  the  conven 
tion,  thereby  giving  an  indication  of  that  spirit  that  was  to  bring 
about  the  separation  of  that  section  at  the  time  of  the  war.  From 
Baltimore,  the  commercial  center  of  Maryland,  a  voice  was  raised 
in  protest  against  the  action  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  and  Ken 
tucky  and  North  Carolina  frowned  upon  all  movements  looking 
toward  disunion.31  Louisiana  flatly  refused  to  appoint  dele 
gates.32  In  Tennessee,  party  lines  were  well  drawn  in  relation 
to  the  matter,  the  Whigs  acknowledging  no  necessity  for  a  con 
vention,  while  it  received  the  support  of  the  Democrats.33  The 
Legislature  of  the  State  refused  to  take  any  action  whatever.34 

It  was  clearly  evident  that  the  whole  movement  lacked  the 
popular  enthusiasm  that  was  necessary  to  insure  its  success. 
The  Wilmington  Chronicle  stated  that  out  of  sixty  exchanges, 
published  in  the  slaveholding  States,  from  Maryland  to  Louis 
iana,  only  fifteen,  or  one-fourth,  took  decided  ground  in  favor 
of  the  convention.  The  rest  were  either  strongly  opposed  to  it, 
in  doubt  as  to  its  utility,  or  silent  on  the  subject.35  Charleston 


28.  He  was  busily  engaged  in  influencing  Southern  Congressmen  to  give  their  aid 
for  the  success  of  the  convention.      Calhoun  Correspondence,  pp.  778-779. 

29.  Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  February  2,   1850. 

30.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,   February  2,    1850. 

31.  Ibid,    February   12,    1850 — Quotes  from   Southern   newspapers   and  comments 
upon  public  opinion  in  the  South. 

32.  Ibid,   March  1,   1850. 

33.  Ibid,  February  21,    1850. 

34.  Ibid,  February  14,  1850. 

35.  Quoted  in  Ibid,  March  22,  1850;  Rhodes,  Vol.  I,  p.  174. 

65 


and  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  and  Jackson,  Mississippi,  were 
the  centers  of  the  agitation  in  favor.36  Several  of  the  delegates 
elect  in  Georgia  absolutely  refused  to  serve.  Delegates  appointed 
in  other  Southern  States,  having  high  hopes  of  the  matters  in 
controversy  being  peaceably  settled  by  a  compromise,  declined 
going  to  Nashville;  and,  as  the  time  set  for  the  assembling  of 
the  convention  drew  near,  it  was  seen  that  not  one-half  of  the 
Southern  population  would  be  represented  there.37 

Representatives  from  nine  of  the  fifteen  slave  States  assem 
bled  at  Nashville,  June  3,  1850,  but  it  is  clear  from  the  numbers 
that  few  of  the  States  sent  full  delegations.  There  were  twenty- 
two  from  Alabama,  seventeen  from  South  Carolina,  twelve  from 
Mississippi,  eleven  from  Georgia;  from  Virginia,  Florida,  and 
Arkansas,  six,  four,  and  three,  respectively;  Texas  stood  at  the 
bottom  of  the  list  with  a  single  delegate ;  and  one  hundred  were 
present  from  Tennessee,38  but  the  greater  part  of  the  latter  must 
have  held  their  seats  by  courtesy.  The  members  first  convened 
in  Odd  Fellows  Hall,  but  that  proving  too  small  for  the  accom 
modation  of  spectators,  the  convention  adjourned  to  the  Mc- 
Kendree  Church,  the  most  spacious  building  in  the  city.  In 
seating  the  delegates,  the  two  places  of  honor,  the  front  pews  on 
each  side  of  the  president's  chair,  were  given  to  South  Carolina 
and  Mississippi, — altogether,  a  proper  recognition  of  their  serv 
ices  in  bringing  about  the  gathering.  In  front  of  the  pulpit,  and 
inside  the  chancel  railing,  tables  were  placed  for  the  accommo 
dation  of  reporters.  The  pews  in  the  side  aisles  were  reserved 
for  ladies,  and  the  galleries  for  other  spectators.39 

The  convention  was  a  gathering  of  able  men,  many  of  whom 
were  distinguished.40  It  was  not  an  assemblage  of  young  politi 
cians,  but  of  gray-haired  Governors,  Judges,  ex-members  of  Con 
gress,  jurists,  and  orators  of  prominence.41  Mississippi  sent 
Judge  William  L.  Sharkey,  one  of  the  ablest  jurists  the  South 
west  ever  produced,  a  Whig  in  politics,  and  a  man  who  greatly 
loved  the  Union.  As  president  of  the  convention,  he  did  much 


36.  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  May  31,  1850. 

37.  Ibid,  June  1,   1850. 

38.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  pp.  25-29. 

39.  Ingraham,  The  Sunny  South,  pp.  131,  135. 

40.  Nashville  Daily  Gazette,  June  4,  1850. 

41.  Ingraham,  The  Sunny  South,  pp.  135-136. 

66 


to  prevent  any  rash  and  hasty  action.42  With  the  possible  excep 
tion  of  Mississippi,  the  most  talented  delegation  present  was  the 
one  from  South  Carolina.  It  contained  Langdon  Cheves,  R.  W. 
Barnwell,  J.  H.  Hammond,  Maxey  Gregg,  and  the  ardent  seces 
sionist,  R.  Barnwell  Rhett.43  Writing  of  Rhett,  Mr.  Phelan,  the 
historian  of  Tennessee,  states  that  the  well-known  Union  senti 
ments  of  Judge  Sharkey  were  more  than  counterbalanced  in  the 
public  mind  by  his  presence  in  the  convention.44  The  most  ultra 
delegation  in  attendance  wras  the  one  from  Virginia,  and  one  of 
its  members,  Beverly  Tucker,  a  half-brother  of  John  Randolph, 
of  Roanoke,  made  the  only  speech  during  the  nine-day  session 
that  was  in  any  ways  bitter  against  the  North.  For  the  most 
part,  the  deliberations  were  marked  by  forbearance  in  this  re 
spect,  and  there  was  almost  a  total  lack  of  vituperation.  The 
North  was  generally  referred  to  as  "our  Northern  brethren,"  or 
"our  sister  States."45 

Judge  Sharkey,  upon  taking  the  president's  chair,  made 
a  short  speech  that  expressed  clearly  the  views  of  Southern 
moderates,  to  which  class  a  majority  of  the  members  belonged. 
After  a  brief  allusion  to  the  causes  that  had  brought  them  to\ 
gether,  he  stated  that  the  purpose  of  the  convention  was  not  • 
merely  to  devise  measures  to  protect  the  rights  and  property  of 
the  Southern  States,  but  to  preserve  the  government  that  had 
been  handed  down  to  them  untarnished.  It  had  not  been  called 
to  subvert,  but  to  perpetuate  the  Union.  In  concluding  his  re 
marks,  his  strong  Union  sympathies  were  expressed  in  the  hope 
that  it  might  be  the  last  thing  to  perish  among  the  universal 
wreck  of  matter.46  By  way  of  contrasting  these  moderate  senti 
ments  with  the  views  of  the  radicals,  we  give  the  substance  of  a 
speech  delivered  by  that  arch  secessionist,  Beverly  Tucker,47  of 
Virginia.  He  unhesitatingly  declared  for  the  formation  of  a 
Southern  Confederacy,  and  sought  to  win  over  those  who  hesi- 


42.  Foote,  Bench  and  Bar  of  the  South  and  Southwest,  pp.  63-64;  Lynch,  Bench 
and  Bar  of  Mississippi,  pp.  189-198. 

43.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  25. 

44.  Phelan,  History  of  Tennessee,  p.  134. 

45.  Ingraham,  The  Sunny  South,  p.  134. 

46.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  23. 

47.  Alluding  to   the   Union   in   a  letter   to  William   Gilmore   Simms,   February   14, 
1851,  Tucker  wrote:    .   .   .   .   "I  will  never  give  rest  to  my  eyes,  nor  slumber  to  my  eye 
lids,  until  it  is  shattered  into  fragments.    I  strove  for  it  in  '33 :  I  strove  for  it  in  '50, 
and  I  will  strive  for  it  while  I  live,  and  leave  the  accomplishment  to  my  boys."     Trent, 
William  Gilmore  Simms,  pp.   183-184. 

67 


tated,  for  fear  that  such  a  proceeding  would  lead  to  a  conflict 
of  arms  with  the  North,  by  declaring  that  cotton  formed  such  a 
strong  bond  of  interest  with  England  that  that  country  would 
never  permit  the  North  to  resort  to  coercive  measures.  If  only 
five  States  of  the  lower  South  participated  in  the  movement,  the 
same  result  would  follow,  and  soon  after  the  border  States, 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  West,  would  be  compelled,  by  shear  force 
of  interests,  to  throw  in  their  lot  with  the  Confederacy.  Then 
New  England,  the  cause  of  all  their  grievances,  would  be  isolated, 
and  without  power.48  Even  if  other  members  were  inclined 
towards  Mr.  Tucker's  extreme  views,  none  ventured  to  express 
themselves  in  set  speeches,  and  the  proceedings  of  the  conven 
tion  were  guided  by  men  holding  moderate  views. 

The  principal  work  of  the  convention  was  the  adoption  of 
twenty-eight  resolutions  that  did  nothing  more  than  group  and 
set  forth  in  concise  form  the  whole  range  of  Southern  grievances. 
[Equal  rights  in  the  Territories  were  demanded,  and  it  was 
/Visserted  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  exclude  therefrom  prop- 
/  erty  held  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union.  Moreover,  it  was 
the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  the  inhabitants  there  with  gov 
ernments  other  than  the  military  and  foreign  organizations  then 
in  force,  which  did  not  give  constitutional  rights  to  the  people. 
Resolution  five  was  one  of  the  few  of  the  series  that  had  a  dis 
tinct  radical  flavor.  It  declared  that  the  slaveholding  States 
could  not,  and  would  not,  submit  to  the  enactment  by  Congress 
of  any  law  imposing  onerous  conditions  upon  the  rights  of  slave 
^masters  to  remove  with  their  property  to  the  Territories,  or  of 
l laws  discriminating  in  favor  of  proprietors  of  other  forms  of 
;  property  against  them.  It  was  expressly  set  forth  that  if  the 
Federal  Government  performed  its  duty,  and  recognized  the 
rights  of  the  slave  States,  it  would  do  much  to  restore  peace  and 
llay  excitement. 

The  prominence  given  Texas  shows  that  Congressional  inten 
tions  in  relation  thereto  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  for  grievance. 
It  was  asserted  that  the  principle  of  equal  State  rights  would 
deprive  the  question  between  Texas  and  the  United  States  of  its 
sectional  character,  and  lead  to  adjustment  without  national 
prejudice.  The  true  boundaries  of  the  State  were  defined  as  in 


48.    Southern  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  II,  pp.  218-2V23. 

68 


the  treaty  of  May  14,  1836,  when  its  independance  was  acknowl 
edged  by  Mexico.  Since  Texas  was  slaveholding,  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  South  not  to  see  any  part  of  its  territory  transferred  to 
the  Federal  Government  without  a  formal  declaration  that  the 
same  should  remain  slave  territory;  and  it  was  also  its  duty  to 
oppose  the  attempts  of  Northern  fanatics  to  get  possession  of  any 
portion  of  its  soil  south  of  36°  31'  for  free  labor.  As  if  the 
above  were  not  sufficient  for  the  purpose  at  hand,  it  was  stated 
that  no  agreement  between  the  United  States  and  Texas,  for  a 
cession  of  soil,  could  discharge  the  Government  of  its  former 
obligation  to  admit  four  new  slave  States,  to  be  formed  out  of 
Texas  territory. 

The  acquisition  of  territory,  it  was  declared,  added  nothing 
to  the  legislative  power  of  the  Government,  which  was  derived 
from  the  Constitution,  and  could  not  be  increased  or  diminished, 
except  by  amendment.  Slavery  existed  in  the  United  States 
independently  of  the  Constitution,  and  Congress  had  no  power 
either  to  create  or  to  destroy  it.  The  Wilmot  Proviso  was  de 
grading  to  the  South.  In  case  the  dominant  majority  in  the 
National  Government  should  refuse  to  recognize  the  great  con 
stitutional  rights  asserted  in  the  resolutions,  the  division  line  of 
36°  30'  in  the  territories  was  demanded.  A  protest  was  regis 
tered  against  the  reception  of  Abolitionists'  petitions  at  Wash 
ington,  and  Congress  was  reminded  of  its  duty  to  provide  for  the 
more  effective  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1793.  Since  the  delegates  could  not 
conclude  that  Congress  would  adjourn  without  an  adjustment 
of  the  sectional  questions,  they  expressed  themselves  as  not  at 
liberty  to  bring  dishonor  upon  the  Southern  States  by  discussing 
measures  of  resistance  to  measures  not  yet  adopted.  In  order  to 
await  the  results  of  the  deliberations  at  Washington,  the  last 
resolution  provided  that  when  the  convention  adjourned  "it 
adjourned  to  meet  at  Nashville,  in  the  State  of  Tennessee,  the 
6th  Monday  after  the  adjournment  of  the  present  session  of 
Congress,  and  that  the  Southern  States  be  recommended  to  fill 
their  delegations  forthwith."49  The  truth  is,  there  was  no  legis 
lation  to  form  a  basis  for  resistance,  and  the  moderate  majority 
may  have  thought  to  dispose  of  the  whole  matter  by  delaying 


49.   For  the  resolutions  see  the  Journal  of  the  Convention,  pp.  3-8. 

69 


action  until  after  a  compromise  had  been  accepted  by  Congress. 
One  other  proceeding  of  the  convention,  the  address  to  the 
people  of  the  South,50  is  yet  to  be  considered.  It  was  written 
by  R.  Barnwell  Rhett,  of  South  Carolina.51  While  more  em 
phatic  than  the  resolutions  adopted,  it  was  not  especially  radical 
or  anti-Union  in  tone.  Its  consideration  brought  out  the  most 
animated  debate  of  the  session.  Ultra  Southern  speeches  were 
made  by  Walter  F.  Colquitt,  of  Georgia,  who,  after  professing 
great  love  for  the  Union,  said  he  would  advise  the  Southern 
States  to  be  moulding  bullets,  casting  cannon,  and  filling  arsenals, 
in  order  to  defend  their  rights,  and  by  Beverly  Tucker,  of  Vir 
ginia.  Rash  proposals  were  condemned  by  Judge  Hunter,  of 
Virginia,  and  General  Pillow,  of  Tennessee.52  Throughout  this 
and  the  other  proceedings,  the  members  of  the  South  Carolina 
delegation  spoke  little,  and  gave  the  lead  to  others53 — an  attitude 
upon  the  part  of  the  delegates  that  characterized  the  attitude  of 
the  State  during  the  course  of  the  struggle  over  slavery  in  the 
Territories.  The  address  was  adopted  unanimously  by  vote  of 
the  States,  but  Messrs.  Davis,  Abercrombie,  Murphy,  Judge 
Byrd,  and  Hunter,  of  Alabama ;  Gholson,  of  Virginia ;  Foreman, 
of  Florida ;  and  Sharkey,  of  Mississippi,  voted  against  it.54 
Judge  Sharkey  also  strongly  condemned  the  measure  in  a  speech 
to  the  convention.55  A  minority  report,  signed  by  A.  O.  P. 
Nicholson  and  Aaron  V.  Brown,  of  Tennessee ;  William  M.  Mur 
phy,  of  Alabama;  Arthur  J.  Foreman,  of  Florida;  and  Samuel 
C.  Roane,  of  Arkansas,  members  of  the  committee  on  resolu 
tions,  concurred  in  recommending  the  resolutions  to  the  conven 
tion,  but  dissented  from  the  majority  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
address,  upon  the  ground  that  their  rightful  duties  had  been 
performed  in  accordance  with  their  instructions  by  preparing 
and  recommending  the  resolutions,  that  had  previously  been 
reported.56 


50.  Entitled   "An   Address  to  the  People  of  Maryland,   Virginia,   North   Carolina, 
South    Carolina,    Georgia,    Florida,    Alabama,    Tennessee,    Kentucky,    Louisiana,    Texas, 
Missouri,  Mississippi  and  Arkansas,  by  the  Nashville  Convention." 

51.  B.    F.    Perry's    Reminiscences,    p.    134;    Du    Bose,    Life   of   Yancey,    p.    247; 
Phelan.   History  of  Tennessee,  p.  434. 

52.  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  June  11  and  12,  1850. 

53.  Ingraham,  The  Sunny  South,  p.  132. 

54.  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  June  12,  1850. 

">5.    Southern  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  II,  pp.  224-225. 
56.   Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  21. 

70 


The  address  was  merely  a  restatement  of  the  Southern  posi 
tion,  as  previously  set  forth  by  Calhoun  in  his  speeches  and 
resolutions,  but  lacking,  in  tfie  orderly  and  logical  arrangement 
of  the  latter.  The  gist  of  the  whole  argument  was  that  the  agita 
tion  against  the  institution  of  slavery,  having  once  entered  the 
public  mind  in  the  free  States,  and  reinforced  by  religious 
enthusiasm  as  it  was,  would  soon  sweep  it  from  the  broad  and 
fertile  South,  unless  checked.  Already  the  pro-slavery  section 
had  lost  much  of  its  former  power,  the  majority  against  it  in 
Congress  was  greater  than  ever  before,  and  the  prospect  of  the 
early  admission  of  several  new  Northern  States  promised  to 
make  its  position  in  the  Union  worse  still.  The  ballot-box  was 
powerless  for  their  protection,  and  in  the  recent  action  of  the 
free  States,  with  few  exceptions,  there  was  no  proof  of  a  return 
ing  sense  of  justice.  An  attempt  was  made  to  show  that  the 
proposed  compromise  measures  were  inconsistent  with  Southern 
rights,  and  unworthy  of  their  acceptance,  since  all  of  the  con 
cessions  were  in  favor  of  the  North.  The  whole  situation  called 
for  action  looking  towards  the  relief  of  the  minority,  but  since 
they  would  be  in  doubt  as  to  what  Congress  would  do  until  it 
adjourned,  it  was  necessary  for  the  convention  to  hold  another 
session,  and  the  address  closed  by  recommending  and  exhorting 
the  people  of  every  Southern  State  to  send  delegates  from  every 
district,  to  meet  at  Nashville  when  they  reassembled.  The  Con 
stitution  and  the  Union  it  created  were  to  be  preserved,  and  their 
liberties  and  institutions  maintaned.57  This  address  was  clearly  \ 
a  measure  to  prepare  the  way,  by  arousing  public  opinion  in  the  / 
South,  for  accomplishing  at  the  second  session  what  the  first  had  i 
failed  to  do :  namely,  the  union  of  the  South. 

As  a  means  of  uniting  the  South,  the  Nashville  convention 
had  been  a  failure.  Only  nine  of  the  Southern  States  were  repre 
sented;  and,  when  we  consider  that  the  basis  for  representation 
was  the  same  as  that  adopted  for  the  selection  of  delegates  to 
nominate  presidential  candidates,  it  is  seen  that  several  of  these 
sent  so  few  delegates  that  we  can  safely  conclude  that  they  did 
not  take  any  great  interest  in  the  convention.  The  death  of 
Calhoun,  in  March  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  delegates,  de 
prived  the  South  of  a  leader,  but  had  he  been  present  to  influence 


57.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  pp.  9-21. 

71 


proceedings,  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  result  would 
have  been  otherwise  than  it  was.  Throughout,  he  had  reckoned 
without  the  masses,  whose  support  is  necessary  for  the  success 
of  any  great  movement  of  the  kind ;  in  other  words,  his  campaign 
of  education  had  effected  only  the  leaders  of  the  Southern  rights 
movement.  The  people  were  either  opposed  or  indifferent  to 
his  plans,  and  it  took  ten  more  years  of  agitation  to  arouse  them 
to  the  point  of  open  resistance.  His  Southern  party  project  was 
twice  brought  up  during  the  last  day  of  the  session  by  Andrew 
H.  Dawson,  of  Georgia,  who,  first  at  the  morning  session,  and 
again  in  the  afternoon,  offered  a  resolution  advising  the  forma 
tion  of  all  parties  in  the  South  into  a  new  party,  to  be  called  the 
"Southern  Republican  Party,"  with  the  motto  "The  Union  of 
the  South  for  the  Sake  of  the  Union."  At  the  morning  session 
it  was  objected  to,  and  withdrawn ;  in  the  afternoon  it  was  laid 
on  the  table  without  debate.58 

The  question,  What  did  Calhoun  hope  to  accomplish  by  a 
union  of  the  South?  now  comes  before  us.  We  might  say  that 
he  was  intent  upon  preserving  Southern  interests,  but  such  a 
statement  would  not  be  specific  enough.  In  his  letter  to  an  Ala 
bama  legislator  he  had  written  of  the  convention:  "Let  that  be 
called,  and  let  it  adopt  measures  to  bring  about  the  co-operation, 
and  I  would  underwrite  for  the  rest."59  What  was  "the  rest" 
to  which  he  referred?  The  same  letter  partly  explains.  By 
bringing  about  united  action  upon  the  part  of  the  Southern 
States,  he  hoped  to  impose  commercial  restrictions  upon  the 
North.  By  leaving  the  Mississippi  River  open  to  Western  trade, 
he  hoped  to  win  that  section  from  its  commercial  and  political 
alliance  with  the  Northeastern  States.  The  South  and  West 
combined  could  guarantee  those  steps  that  he  mentioned  as  being 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union  in  his  speech  on  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  the  most  important  of  which  was 
the  amendment  to  the  Constitution.00  His  discourse  on  govern 
ment  informs  us  of  the  nature  of  this  amendment,  which  pro 
vided  for  two  Presidents  for  the  country,  one  chosen  by  the 
North,  and  one  by  the  South,  and  requiring  each  to  approve  all 

58.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  June  13,   1850. 

59.  See  Chapter  I,  pp.  13-14. 

60.  See  Chapter  III,   p.   53. 


acts  of  Congress  before  they  became  laws.61  Calhoun's  object 
was  to  apply  to  the  nation  the  experience  of  South  Carolina  in? 
conserving  the  power  of  the  minority,  in  the  slavery  employing 
counties  of  the  lowlands,  against  the  free  majority,  in  the  interior 
counties  of  the  State.  Upon  this  matter,  Professor  Turner  wrote 
as  follows :  "In  1794  it  was  claimed  by  the  up-country  leaders 
that  four-fifths  of  the  people  were  governed  by  one-fifth.  Nor 
was  the  difficulty  met  until  the  constitutional  amendment  of 
1808,  the  effect  of  which  was  to  give  the  control  of  the  Senate  to 
the  lower  section,  and  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  the 
upper  section,  thus  providing  a  mutual  veto.  This  South  Caro 
lina  experience  furnished  the  historical  basis  for  Calhoun  's  argu 
ment  for  nullification,  and  for  the  political  philosophy  under 
lying  his  theory  of  the  'concurrent  majority'."62 


61.  Discourse   on   the    Constitution    and    Government   of   the   United   States,    Cal 
houn's  Works,  Vol.  I,  p.  392. 

62.  Turner,  The  Old  West,  p.  227. 


73 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  COMPROMISE  QUESTION  BEFORE  THE  COUNTRY. 


So  far  as  Congress  was  concerned,  the  territorial  and  other 
troublesome  questions  of  the  time  had  been  settled  by  the  adop 
tion  of  the  compromise  measures,  but  it  remains  to  be  seen  how 
the  adjustment  was  viewed  in  the  country  at  large.  It  was 
evident  from  the  first  that  radicals  in  both  sections  would  be 
dissatisfied  with  the  settlement.  Even  before  the  adjournment 
of  Congress,  an  indication  of  what  was  to  be  expected  from 
Southern  extremists  was  manifested  by  the  action  of  several 
Southern  Senators,  who,  after  ineffectually  seeking  to  bring 
about  the  acceptance  of  an  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  of  36°  30'  to  the  Pacific,  united  in  an  unsuccessful  attempt 
to  enter  a  solemn  protest  against  the  admission  of  California 
upon  the  Journal  of  the  Senate.1  But  such  views  upon  the  part 
of  Jefferson  Davis  and  his  followers  did  not  find  an  echo  in  the 
prevailing  sentiment  at  Washington.  President  Fillmore  and  Sec 
retary  of  State  Webster  were  enthusiastically  serenaded  by  the 
Union  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,2  and  news  of 
the  passage  of  the  several  acts  of  compromise  was  received  with 
demonstrations  of  great  joy  in  the  city.3  In  how  far  the  senti 
ments  expressed  at  Washington  indicated  the  sentiments  of  the 
whole  country,  an  inquiry  into  the  state  of  the  public  mind  in 
the  Northern  and  Southern  sections  will  disclose. 

To  repeat,  it  goes  without  saying  that  the  Congressional 
adjustment  would  not  satisfy  the  radicals  in  either  section.  Gar 
rison  spoke  for  the  Abolitionists  when  he  declared  that  "The 
time  has  come  to  preach  disunion  on  the  highest  moral  and  reli 
gious  grounds.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  a 
covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell."4  Many  of 
his  followers  actually  petitioned  Congress  for  a  dissolution  of 
the  Union.5  They  were  especially  indignant  at  the  passage  of 


1.  Senate  Journal,   31  Cong.,   1  Sess.,  pp.  558,  561. 

2.  Poore,  Perley's  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  p.  384. 

3.  Milliard,  Politics  and  Pen  Pictures,  pp.  232-233. 

4.  Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  February  2,  1850. 

5.  Cong.  Globe,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  p.  319. 

74 


the  fugitife  slave  law,  and  during  the  autumn  of  1850  public 
meetings,  held  in  all  parts  of  the  North,  denounced  it  as  uncon 
stitutional,  unchristian,  and  demanded  its  repeal.6  At  Syracuse, 
New  York,  a  public  meeting  adopted  resolutions  declaring  that 
no  peace  should  come  until  the  "Higher  Law"  had  the  ascen 
dency  in  the  councils  of  the  nation.7  An  Abolitionist  convention 
in  Pennsylvania  declared  "That  the  present  Congress  of  the 
United  States  had  stamped  itself  with  indelible  infamy  by  the 
passage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  and  any  man  who  aids  in  its 
execution  is  guilty  of  treachery  to  humanity,  and  treason  against 
God."8 

But  the  act  met  with  more  serious  Northern  opposition  than 
was  contained  in  resolutions  adopted  at  public  meetings  and 
conventions.  The  city  authorities  of  Boston,  carrying  out  the 
purpose  of  the  new  fugitive  slave  law  to  the  letter,  arrested, 
February,  1851,  an  escaped  negro  named  Shadrach.  While  con 
fined  in  the  court  room,  by  reason  of  the  Massachusetts  law 
forbidding  the  use  of  the  jails  for  the  confinement  of  fugitive 
slaves,  he  was  rescued  by  a  negro  mob,  and  made  his  escape  to 
Canada.9  This  proceeding  caused  Henry  Clay  to  move  a  Senate 
resolution  requesting  the  President  to  signify  whether  any  addi 
tional  legislation  was  necessary  for  a  proper  execution  of  the 
new  law.10  President  Fillmore  issued  a  special  proclamation,  in 
which  he  deplored  the  whole  proceeding,  and  advised  a  more 
wholesome  respect  for  the  enactments  of  Congress.11  Neverthe 
less,  in  spite  of  all  efforts  to  prevent,  some  of  the  most  highly 
respected  citizens  of  Boston  did  not  hesitate  in  expressing  their 
approval  of  the  rescue,  and  a  vigilance  committee  was  formed 
to  bring  about  a  repetition  of  the  proceedings  should  the  occa 
sion  present  itself.  They  did  not  have  long  to  wait.  In  April  a 
fugitive  named  Sims  was  arrested.  A  meeting  of  the  vigilance 
committee  was  held  in  the  office  of  Garrison's  "Liberator,"  and 
plans  of  rescue  were  adopted.  Another  meeting,  presided  over 
by  Horace  Mann,  the  great  educator,  was  held  in  Tremont 
Temple  for  the  same  purpose.  The  authorities,  profiting  by  the 


6.  Smith,  Parties  and  Slavery,  p.  16. 

7.  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  256. 

8.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  November  11,  1850. 

9.  Higginson,  Cheerful  Yesterdays,  p.  135. 

10.  Senate  Journal,  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  p.  187. 

11.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  V,  pp.  109-110. 

75 


Shadrach  experience,  guarded  their  prisoner  so  well  that  all 
plans  for  his  rescue  had  to  be  abandoned,12  but  the  general 
excitement,  and  the  high  standing  of  the  participators  in  the 
attempted  rescue,  showed  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  enforcing 
the  law.  If  doubts  upon  that  score  remained,  similar  proceed 
ings  in  other  sections  of  the  North  soon  put  them  to  rest,  and  at 
the  same  time  showed  the  powerlessness  of  written  law  as  com 
pared  with  the  power  of  public  opinion,  backed  up  by  strong 
convictions. 

The  attitude  of  the  Abolitionists  Southern  counterpart,  the 
so-called  "Fire  Eater,"  was  well  set  forth  in  the  words  of  ex- 
Governor  Troup,  of  Georgia,  who  declared:  "All  remedies 
short  of  force  or  conventional  agreement,  I  reject."13  and  the 
practical  application  of  such  views  was  soon  attempted  by  Gov 
ernor  Quitman,  of  Mississippi.14  We  have  now  presented  for 
our  consideration  the  unusual  situation  where  extremists  upon 
both  sides  of  a  national  question  were  clamoring  for  the  same 
solution— in  this  case,  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Occupying 
a  position  midway  between  them,  the  great  mass  of  the  people 
/of  the  country  were  contented  with  conditions  as  they  then  were, 
and  only  asked  to  be  left  to  the  quiet  enjoyment  of  abundant 
harvests,  and  general  prosperity.15  To  quote  A.  H.  Stephens: 
"The  truth  is,  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people,  North 
as  well  as  South,  were  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  principles 
affirmed  by  the  measures  of  1850.  "16 

Naturally  enough,  the  citizens  in  the  larger  trade  centers  of 
the  country  viewed  the  agitation  of  Abolitionists  and  Seces 
sionists  alike  with  alarm;  they  did  not  want  to  lose  the  advan 
tages  of  a  trade  carried  on  with  all  parts  of  the  country.  This 
feeling  was  very  pronounced  among  the  business  men  of  New 
York  City,  and  it  led  to  immediate  steps  being  taken  for  the 
promotion  of  harmony  and  good  feeling.  A  committee,  com 
posed  of  one  hundred  of  the  most  respected  citizens,  was  ap 
pointed,  and  named  the  Committee  of  Safety  of  New  York.  Its 
duty  was  to  promote  the  cause  of  union  and  harmony,  and  the 


12.  Higginson,  Cheerful  Yesterdays,  pp.  139-141. 

13.  Letter  to  John  G.  Slappey,  Harden,  Life  of  Troup,  Appendix,  p.  19. 

14.  Quitman's  part  in  the  movement  is  discussed  in  the  next  chapter. 

15.  Sargent,    Public    Men    and    Events,    Vol.    II,    pp.    376-377;    Weekly    National 
Intelligencer,  February  2,   1850. 

16.  Stephens,  The  War  Between  the  States,  Vol.  II,  p.  235. 

76 


enforcement  of  the  laws,  the  compromise  laws  in  particular. 
Their  motto  was,  * '  The  Union,  the  Constitution,  and  the  Enforce 
ment  of  the  Laws."17 

Union  meetings  were  held  in  many  cities  and  towns  at  the 
North,  at  which  prominent  men  of  both  political  parties  took 
part,  and  resolutions  endorsing  and  pledging  support  to  the 
compromise  measures  were  passed.18  One  of  these,  held  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  October  30,  1850,  voted  the  thanks  of  the 
community  and  of  the  nation  "to  those  eminent  patriots  and 
statesmen,  Clay,  Cass,  Webster,  Fillmore,  Dickinson,  Foote, 
Houston,  and  others,"  resolved  to  sustain  the  fugitive  slave  law 
by  all  lawful  means,  and  pledged  those  present  not  to  vote  for 
any  man  for  office  who  favored  further  slavery  agitation.19 
After  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  Northern  members  of  both 
Houses,  on  their  way  homeward,  were  given  a  public  reception 
by  the  citizens  of  New  York,  in  recognition  of  their  patriotic 
action  in  passing  the  compromise  measures.  General  Cass  ad 
dressed  those  assembled  upon  this  occasion.20  The  feeling  in 
Pennsylvania,  outside  of  Abolitionist  ranks,  was  expressed  in 
the  call  issued  for  a  meeting  at  York  of  "all  citizens  opposed  to 
the  movements  of  fanatics  in  the  North,  the  South,  or  elsewhere, 
who  are  distracting  the  country,  and  seeking  to  divide  our 
glorious  Union."21  Even  at  Boston,  that  Abolitionist  city  that 
sheltered  Garrison  and  his  "Liberator,"  a  compromise  meeting 
was  held,22  and  beyond  the  Mississippi  River,  at  Burlington, 
Iowa,  a  public  gathering  recognized  "the  right  of  our  brethren 
of  the  slave  States  to  have  their  fugitives  delivered  up. ' ':  At 
Chicago,  a  public  meeting,  addressed  by  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
expressed  a  determination  to  support  and  sustain  the  fugitive 
slave  law.24  A  large  majority  of  the  people  at  the  North  were 
unquestionably  in  favor  of  the  compromise. 

The  National  Intelligencer  stated  that  when  it  became  known 
that  Congress  was  about  to  adopt  the  measures  of  settlement,  it 


17.  Sargent,  Public  Men  and  Events,  Vol.  II,  p.  386. 

18.  Ibid,  p.  378. 

19.  New  York  Tribune,  October  31,  1850. 

20.  Smith,  Life  and  Times  of  Lewis  Cass,  p.  710. 

21.  Tri- Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  January  7,  1851. 

22.  Smith,  Parties  and  Slavery,  p.  16. 

23.  Tri-Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  September  17,  1850. 

24.  Sheahan,  Life  of  Douglas,  p.  162. 

77 


could  fill  a  double  sheet  of  forty- eight  columns  with  extracts  full 
of  joy  and  congratulation  from  the  South  and  West  alone. 2'"i 
Even  when  the  Nashville  convention  wras  in  session,  compromise 
meetings,  with  memberships  made  up  irrespective  of  party  fol 
lowing,  were  held  in  the  city  of  Nashville,2"  and  in  Smith 
County,27  Tennessee,  and  resolutions  in  favor  of  such  an  adjust 
ment  were  unanimously  adopted.  Congress  had  hardly  finished 
its  work  when  a  Union  meeting  in  Mississippi  adopted  a  set  of 
resolutions  endorsing  its  action,  approved  the  course  of  their 
Senator,  Henry  S.  Foote,  who  had  been  prominent  in  supporting 
Clay's  resolutions,  and  dissented  from  the  recommendations  of 
the  Nashville  convention.28  Governor  Quitman,  of  that  same 
State,  was,  in  the  meantime,  striving  to  keep  alive  the  spirit  of 
disunion.  A  meeting  of  two  hundred  citizens,  addressed  by  him 
at  Natchez,  was  prevented  from  adopting  anti-compromise  reso 
lutions  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  loyal  men,  which  left  such  a 
small  attendance  that  action  was  deemed  inexpedient.  A  meet 
ing  at  Yazoo  City  voted  down  disloyal  resolutions.29  In  Alabama, 
meetings  at  Montgomery,  largely  attended  by  Whigs  from  the 
slave  counties  in  the  vicinity,  and  in  Marengo  County,  the  most 
populous  county  in  the  State,  ratified  the  compromise  measures.30 
The  Secessionists,  doubtless  thinking  it  useless  in  the  face  of  the 
sentiment  shown  at  the  two  meetings,  made  no  attempt  to  induce 
the  Governor  to  act  in  any  way  upon  the  subject,  but  under  the 
lead  of  Yancey,  Southern  Rights  associations  were  formed.31 

What  little  contest  there  was  in  Alabama  took  place  during 
the  State  election  of  1851,  and  that  was  almost  entirely  confined 
to  the  election  of  Representatives  to  Congress.32  One  of  the 
phases  which  it  took  on  deserves  special  notice,  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  the  question  at  issue  was  the  policy  of  influencing  the 
Southern  people  to  oppose  measures  of  the  general  Government 
touching  Southern  institutions.  Congressman  Henry  W.  Hil- 
liard,  whose  previous  course  of  action  had  marked  him  as  a  strong 


25.  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  September  17,  1850. 

26.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  June  3,  1850. 

27.  Ibid,  June  7,  1850. 

28.  September  23,   1850.     Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  October  10,   1850. 

29.  Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  October  24,   1850. 

30.  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  251. 

31.  Ibid,  p.  250. 

32.  Ibid,  p.  261. 

78 


Union  man,33  declined  to  run  again  for  office,  but  he  consented 
to  make  a  few  speeches  in  favor  of  the  Whig  candidate  in  the 
Montgomery  district.  The  Democrats  decided  that  some  one 
representing  their  candidate  should  meet  him  at  the  places  where 
it  had  been  announced  that  he  would  speak,  and  Yancey  was 
chosen.  The  actual  candidates  stood  apart  while  this  contest  of 
oratory  wTas  going  on.  Hilliard  is  described  as  having  a  great 
advantage  over  Yancey  in  literary  accomplishments,  while  Yancey 
excelled  in  knowledge  of  men,  and  was  a  better  master  of  the 
passions.34  It  appears  that  opinion  in  Alabama  was  about 
equally  divided  as  to  which  was  the  greater  orator.  The  result 
of  the  canvass  was  the  full  vindication  of  Hilliard 's  Union  views 
on  the  nature  of  the  Federal  Government,  through  the  election 
of  the  Whig  candidate.35  During  the  State  election  there  was 
no  contest  between  the  Secessionists  and  Unionists  on  the  direct 
issue  of  accepting  the  compromise.  A  States  Rights  Democrat, 
S.  W.  Harris,  was  re-elected  to  Congress  rVom  the  Third  Dis 
trict,  and  Yancey  received  a  complimentary  vote  of  414  for 
Governor.36 

The  General  Assembly  of  Kentucky  passed  a  resolution, 
January  24,  1850,  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  agitation  over 
Clay's  resolutions,  that  left  few  doubts  as  to  what  action  could 
be  expected  from  that  State.  The  Governor  was  authorized,  and 
requested,  to  have  a  suitable  block  of  native  marble  sent  to 
Washington  for  the  monument  being  erected  to  the  memory  of 
President  Washington,  and  that  the  following  words  should  be 
engraved  upon  it:  "Under  the  auspices  of  Heaven  and  the 
precepts  of  Washington,  Kentucky  will  be  the  last  to  give  up 
the  Union ' '  ;37  and  when  we  recall  what  action  was  taken  by  the 
State  at  the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War,  it  is  seen  that  the  state 
ment  was  not  an  idle  one.  The  determining  factor  in  regard  to 
Kentucky's  attitude,  and  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  it  when 
seeking  a  reason  for  Henry  Clay's  activity  in  favor  of  compro 
mise  throughout  his  Congressional  career,  was  clearly  brought 


33.  Hilliard,  Politics  and  Pen  Pictures,  pp.  207-210. 

34.  Smith,  Reminiscences  of  a  Long  Life,  pp.  222-223. 

35.  For  details  of  the  Hilliard-Yancey  contest  see  Hilliard,  Politics  and  Pen  Pic 
tures,  pp.  250-254;  Mellen,  Henry  W.  Hilliard  and  William  L.  Yancey,  in  the  Sewanee 
Review  for  January,  1909. 

36.  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  pp.  261-266. 

37.  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly,  1849-1850,  Resolution  No.  5 

79 


out  in  Governor  Crittenden's  message  to  the  State  Legislature, 
December,  1849,  when  he  stated  that  "To  Kentucky  and  the 
other  Western  States  in  the  Valley  of  the  Mississippi,  the  Union 
is  indispensable  to  their  commercial  interests."38 

News  of  the  passage  of  the  compromise  was  well  received  in 
Texas,39  and  the  formal  acceptance  of  the  boundary  settlement 
by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  removed  the  most  dangerous 
question  of  the  whole  controversy  from  the  field  of  agitation.40 
No  excitement  of  a  dangerous  nature  was  reported  west  of  the 
Mississippi  River.  In  Virginia,  as  in  the  other  border  States, 
the  general  feeling  was  favorable  to  the  Congressional  settle 
ment,  but  the  non-observance  of  the  fugitive  slave  law  at  the 
North  provoked  the  indignation  of  Governor  Floyd,  who  recom 
mended,  in  a  message  to  the  State  Legislature,  a  system  of  taxa 
tion  by  license,  so  arranged  that  it  would  transfer  the  trade  of 
the  Commonwealth  from  those  States  that  failed  to  observe  the 
compromise  to  those  that  abided  by  it.41  South  Carolina,  as 
usual,  leaned  toward  disunion,  and  called  loudly  for  a  South 
ern  congress,  where  the  preliminary  steps  towards  that  end  could 
,be  taken,42  and  Georgia  and  Mississippi  experienced  secession 
struggles,  brought  on  by  State  Rights  leaders ;  but  their  cases 
will  receive  special  treatment  in  following  chapters,  and  need 
not  detain  us  here. 

As  was  stated  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the  Nashville  con 
vention  adjourned  to  meet  again  the  sixth  Monday  after  the 
adjournment  of  Congress,  when  it  was  confidently  expected  that 
definite  knowledge  as  to  Congressional  action  Xvould  leave  the 
which  favored  its  assembling  the  previous  June  had  lost  most 
way  clear  for  the  convention  to  take  action  in  behalf  of  Southern 
rights.  It  met  November  11,  1850,  was  in  session  seven  days, 
and,  like  the  first,  proved  abortive.  From  the  reduced  size  of 
of  what  popularity  it  ever  had,  after  the  adoption  of  the  com 
promise  measures.  Georgia  and  Florida  were  the  only  States 
that  sent  as  many  delegates  as  to  the  first  session,  but  South 
Carolina  only  lacked  one  of  its  former  representation.  The 


38.  Coleman,  Life  of  Crittenden,  Vol.  I,  pp.  250-252. 

39.  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  October  1,  1850. 

40.  November  25,   1850.      See  President  Fillmore's  special  proclamation  upon  the 
subject.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  Vol.  V,  p.  109. 

41.  William  L.  Garrison  by  His  Children,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  279. 

42.  Tri-Weekly  National  Intelligencer,  January  7,  1851. 

80 


Alabama  delegation  had  dwindled  from  twenty-two  to  five;  the 
Mississippi  delegation  from  twelve  to  eight ;  and  Virginia  sent 
a  single  delegate,  in  place  of  six,  as  upon  the  former  occasion. 
Tennessee  had  fourteen  present.  Texas  and  Arkansas  were  un 
represented,  thus  leaving  seven  States  taking  part  in  the  pro 
ceedings,  instead  of  the  former  nine.43  What  was  particularly 
evident  throughout  the  proceedings,  and  what  was  perfectly 
natural  under  the  circumstances,  was  that,  whereas  the  first 
session  had  been  made  up  largely  of  men  holding  moderate, 
views,  the  second  was  composed  almost  entirely  of  radicals.  Most 
of  the  Union  men  had  refused  to  attend,  and  it  is  probable  that 
many  of  that  type  who  were  in  attendance  were  there  solely  for 
the  purpose  of  influencing  proceedings.  This  seems  to  have  been 
the  case  with  the  Tennessee  delegates  at  all  events.  Judge 
Sharkey,  who  had  played  such  an  influential  part  at  the  first 
session,  was  not  present,  but  was  engaged  in  delivering  Union 
most  of  the  State  delegations,  it  is  clear  that  the  movement 
speeches  at  the  time.44 

In  the  absence  of  Judge  Sharkey,  Governor  McDonald,  of 
Georgia,  was  chosen  president,45  and  proceedings  were  begun 
with  a  Secessionist  in  the  chair.  Another  feature  that  distin 
guished  the  second  session  from  the  earlier  one  was  the  prominent 
part  played  throughout  by  the  men  from  South  Carolina,  who 
had  evidently  become  convinced  that  they  would  have  to  recede 
from  their  former  position  of  inaction  if  anything  of  a  positive 
nature  were  to  be  accomplished.  That  they  were  determined  to 
bring  the  convention  to  the  adoption  of  the  extreme  policy  advo 
cated  by  their  State,  if  possible,  is  clear  from  the  position,  taken 
by  Langdon  Cheves,  of  their  delegation,  who,  when  South  Caro 
lina  was  called  in  the  roll  of  States,  presented  a  resolution 
"That  secession  by  the  joint  action  of  the  slaveholding  States  is^ 
the  only  efficient  remedy  for  the  aggravated  wrongs  which  they  • 
now  endure,  and  the  enormous  evils  which  threaten  them  in  the 
future,  from  the  usurped  and  now  unrestricted  power  of  the 
Federal  Government."46  He  gave  his  views  on  Government 


43.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  November  19,   1850;  Nashville  Daily 
Gazette,  November  19,   1850. 

44.  See  an  account  of  a  speech  delivered  by  him  at  Vicksburg,  Republican  Ban 
ner  and  Nashville  Whig,  November  14,  1850. 

45.  Ibid,  November  12,   1850;  Daily  Nashville  American,  November  12,   1850. 

46.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  November  15,  1850. 

81 


action  in  relation  to  the  Territories  in  a  speech  that  occupied 
three  hours  in  its  delivery,  during  which  time  he  made  statements 
the  following  one  of  which  is  but  a  fair  sample:  "I  have  said 
they  have  made  the  appropriation  of  this  territory  an  instru 
ment  to  abolish  the  Constitution.  There  is  no  doubt  they  have 
abolished  the  Constitution.  The  carcass  may  remain,  but  the 
spirit  has  left  it.  It  is  now  a  fetid  mass,  creating  disease  and 
death.  It  stinks  in  our  nostrils."47  A  majority  of  the  members 
did  not  approve  of  such  undisguised  disunion  sentiments,  and 
one  of  the  leading  newspapers  in  the  city  refused  to  print  the 
speech  for  the  following  reason :  "It  would  occupy  some  ten  or 
twelve  columns  in  our  paper — a  space  that  we  are  not  willing  to 
appropriate  to  the  promulgation  of  such  sentiments."48 

The  proceedings  at  the  adjourned  session,  unlike  those  of  the 
first  meeting,  were  stormy  in  the  extreme.  Several  of  the  dele 
gations  presented  two  or  more  sets  of  resolutions,  expressing 
entirely  different  views,  and  showing  a  lack  of  unanimity  even 
among  the  representatives  of  a  single  State.  Those  of  Georgia 
and  Mississippi  were  the  most  marked  in  this  respect,  and  the 
measures  recommended  varied  from  immediate  declarations  of 
independence,  in  case  the  North  continued  anti-slavery  agitation, 
to  acquiescence  in  the  compromise  adjustment.49  Both  sets  of 
the  Tennessee  resolutions,  the  majority  series  presented  by  Gen 
eral  Pillow,  and  the  minority  by  Judge  Donaldson,  recommended 
an  acceptance  of  the  compromise  measures,  but  the  former  dif 
fered  from  the  latter  in  that  they  made  acquiescence  conditioned 
upon  the  good  faith  of  the  North  in  fulfilling  its  part  of  the 
agreement.50  All  in  all,  while  some  of  the  proposed  resolutions 
were  very  outspoken  upon  the  subject  of  Southern  rights,  none 
compared  in  this  respect  with  the  single  resolution  presented  by 
Langdon  Cheves,  of  South  Carolina.  None  of  the  others  com 
mitted  themselves  beyond  recommending  a  Southern  Congress, 
or  proposing  the  arming  of  the  South  in  defense  of  its  Constitu 
tional  rights. 

The  preamble  and  resolutions  adopted  upon  the  last  day  of 
the  session  were  radical,  although  the  first  of  the  latter  professed 


47.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  November  16,  1850. 

48.  Daily  Nashville  Union,  November  21,   1850. 

49.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  November  15  and  18,  1850. 

50.  Ibid,  November  14,  1850. 

82 


a  cordial  attachment  to  the  Constitutional  Union  of  the  States, 
and  declared  that  the  purpose  of  the  convention  was  to  preserve 
the  Union.  The  passage  of  the  compromise  measures,  it  was 
asserted,  had  fulfilled  all  of  the  evils  anticipated  by  the  South, 
and  it  was  earnestly  recommended  to  all  parties  in  the  slave- 
holding  States  that  they  refuse  to  go  into  any  national  conven 
tion,  under  any  party  denomination  whatever,  until  their  consti 
tutional  rights  had  been  secured.  This  proposition  came  the 
nearest  to  recommending  the  Calhoun  plan  of  Southern  union 
of  any  of  the  measures  proposed  during  the  proceedings.  Final 
action,  as  at  the  first  session,  was  referred,  this  time  to  a  "con-/ 
gress  or  convention"  earnestly  recommended  to  the  slaveholding 
States,  "to  be  held  at  such  time  and  place  as  the  States  desiring 
to  be  represented  may  designate,"  and  each  State  delegation  to 
be  composed  of  twice  as  many  members  as  that  State  had  Sena 
tors  and  Representatives  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
The  insufficient  authority  given  the  delegates  had  proved  a 
serious  drawback  upon  two  occasions,  so  it  was  recommended 
that  the  representatives  sent  to  the  proposed  congress  or  con 
vention  be  "entrusted  to  deliberate  and  act  with  the  view  and 
intention  of  arresting  further  aggression,  and,  if  possible,  of 
restoring  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South ;  and,  if  not,  then 
to  provide  for  their  future  safety  and  independence. ' '  The  most 
definite  thing  about  the  whole  proceedings  was  the  statement  of 
the  right  of  secession  in  the  preamble. 

This  preamble  and  the  resolutions  were  adopted  by  States, 
six  voting  for,  and  one,  Tennessee,  voting  against.  Judge  Don 
aldson,  of  the  latter  State,  made  an  ineffectual  effort  to  bring 
about  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote,  and  the  convention  adjourned 
while  he  was  upon  the  floor  vainly  trying  to  record  his  protest 
"against  the  unhallowed  purposes  of  the  convention"51 — a  fitting 
climax  to  the  part  played  by  a  majority  of  the  Tennessee  dele 
gates,  who  had  opposed  the  proceedings  throughout.  The  dele 
gates  went  home,  followed  by  cries  of  * '  Treason ' '  from  the  press 
of  the  State,  which  had  been  inclined  to  favor  the  movement  the 
preceding  June  ;52  and  no  better  evidence  of  the  futility  of  their 
work  is  needed  than  the  fact  that  the  proposed  congress  never 
met. 


51.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig,  November  19,  1850. 

52.  Nashville  Daily  Gazette,  November  20.  1850. 

33 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  SECESSION  MOVEMENTS  IN  GEORGIA  AND  IN 
MISSISSIPPI,  1850-1851. 


In  the  preceding  chapter,  an  attempt  was  made  to  show  that 
the  general  feeling,  North  and  South,  was  favorable  to  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850,  and  also  to  show  that  the  attempt 
upon  the  part  of  Southern  radicals  to  bring  about  the  united 
opposition  of  the  South  to  their  acceptance,  through  the  instru 
mentality  of  the  second  session  of  the  Nashville  convention,  had 
ended  in  failure.  Thereafter,  the  opposing  movement  took  the 
form  of  single  State  action ;  first  in  Georgia,  then  in  Mississippi, 
and  finally  in  South  Carolina.  The  present  chapter  deals  with 
the  two  first  named,  South  Carolina  being  reserved  for  later 
consideration,  owing  to  the  unusual  aspect  of  affairs  in  that 
State. 

Georgia  was  the  field  for  the  first  struggle  over  the  accept 
ance  of  the  compromise  measures.  Immediately  after  the  passage 
of  those  acts,  it  was  extremely  difficult  to  tell  upon  which  side 
of  the  question  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  stood,  either 
for  submission  or  resistance  to  the  adjustment,  so  evenly  was 
sentiment  divided.1  But  the  highly  threatening  speeches  of  the 
Georgia  Representatives  at  Washington,  especially  those  deliv 
ered  by  Toombs  and  Stephens  during  the  speakership  contest  of 
the  thirty-first  Congress,  and  the  extremely  critical  months  that 
followed,  which  had  been  made  largely  with  the  object  of  fright 
ening  Northern  members  into  compliance  with  Southern  de 
mands,  had  brought  about  a  misunderstanding  upon  the  part  of 
the  people.  They  were  not  cognizant  of  the  underlying  motives 
of  their  Congressmen,  and,  interpreting  the  ultra  speeches 
j  literally,  were  so  wrought  up  in  consequence  that  they  were 
almost  ready  to  declare  for  immediate  secession.2  Moreover, 


1.  Troup  to  John  G.  Slappey,  Harden,  Life  of  Troup,  Appendix,  p.  19. 

2.  L.   J.    Glynn    wrote   to    Howell   Cobb,    September   21,    1850:      "The   fire-eaters 
hare    i m-le  high   calculations  upon   the   accession   of  Messrs.   Toombs   and   Stephens  to 
:h   ir  cause.      Since  (lie  'Latter  Day'  revelations  of  those  gentlemen,  however,  the  stock 
lias  fallen.      I  confess  I  have  not  been  able  to  comprehend  the  course  of  those  gentle 
men,    unless    it   be  that  they   intend  to  place   themselves   in   such   a   position   that   they 
might,   wiihout  incurring  the  charge  of   inconsistency,  join   either  the   'house   of  York 
or   Lancaster'   as  circumstances  might  make   it  prudent.      Many  of  their  own  party  in 
this    country    at   least   have    not    approved   of   the    'mysterious    course'    they   have   seen 
proper  to  pursue."     Cobb  Mss.  Correspondence.     See  also  Phillips,   Georgia  and  State 
Rights,  pp.  163-164. 

84 


mass  meetings  of  citizens,  held  during  the  preceding  summer 
months,  had  been  well  instructed  in  the  subject  of  Southern 
rights  by  R.  Barnwell  Rhett,  of  South  Carolina;  McDonald,  of 
Georgia,  the  presiding  officer  at  the  November  session  of  the 
Nashville  convention;  and  Yancey,  of  Alabama.3  During  the 
earlier  part  of  the  year,  while  the  state  of  affairs  at  Washington 
appeared  most  threatening  to  Southern  interests,  the  State  Legis 
lature  had  adopted  resolutions  making  it  the  duty  of  the  Gover 
nor,  should  Congress  pass  acts  admitting  California  or  New 
Mexico,  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  doing 
away  with  the  slave  trade  between  the  States,  or  denying  the 
right  to  recover  fugitive  slaves,  to  call  a  State  convention  within 
sixty  days  thereafter.4  Part  of  the  acts  having  been  passed. 
Governor  Towne  issued  the  call,  as  instructed. 

Such  was  the  state  of  affairs  when  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  reached  home,  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  and  they 
immediately  set  to  work  in  order  to  counteract  the  disunion 
movement,5  and  to  convince  the  people  that  the  compromise  was 
a  victory  for  the  South,  and  that  their  best  policy  was  to  accept 
it.  Toombs  was  especially  active.  His  first  act  was  to  issue  an 
address  to  the  people  of  Georgia,  calling  upon  them  to  stand  by 
the  Constitution  and  the  laws  in  good  faith,  until  wrong  was 
consummated,  or  the  act  of  exclusion  placed  upon  the  statute 
books.  He  frankly  stated  that  the  South  had  not  secured  its  full 
rights,  but  great  and  important  principles  had  been  established, 
dnd  continued  as  follows:  "The  South  has  compromised  no 
right,  surrendered  no  principle,  and  lost  not  an  inch  of  ground 
in  this  great  contest.  I  did  not  hesitate  to  accept  these  acts,  but 
gave  them  my  ready  support."  With  the  spirit  and  purpo.se  of 
the  Governor's  call  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  convention, 
he  took  prompt  issue,  and  declared  that  the  Legislature  had 
endangered  the  honor  of  the  State,  and  that  the  Governor  had 
put  the  people  in  a  defile.  "We  must  either  repudiate  this 
policy,  or  arm,"  he  wrote;  and  added  that  he  preferred  the 
former  course  for  his  part.6  The  efforts  of  these  three  men  were 
so  successful  that  a  majority  of  the  delegates  elected  to  the  State 
convention  were  Union  men.  In  the  complex  situation  of  the 


3.  Phillips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  p.  164. 

4.  February  8,  1850,  Acts  of  Georgia,  1849-1850,  p.  122. 

5.  Stovall,  Life  of  Toombs,  p.  82. 

6.  Ibid,  p.  83. 

85 


parties  and  factions,  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  determine  the 
result  with  any  degree  of  accuracy,  but  it  was  generally  conceded 
at  the  time  that  the  Unionist  majority  was  30,000,  and  that  the 
Disunionists  did  not  elect  thirty  out  of  two  hundred  and  sixty 
delegates.7 

The  convention  met  at  Milledgeville,  December  10,  1850,  and 
its  membership  was  made  up  of  the  leading  citizens  of  the  State, 
including  Stephens  and  Toombs.  The  result  of  the  deliberations 
was  the  adoption  of  a  long  preamble  and  five  resolutions,  that 
were,  for  the  most  part,  decidedly  pacific  in  character.  The 
preamble,  in  mild  and  temperate  language,  set  forth  that  Georgia 
found  matter  for  approval,  and  matter  for  disapproval,  in  the 
compromise  adjustment,  but  that  she  would  abide  by  the  recent 
action  of  Congress  in  hopeful  reliance  that  the  people  of  the  non- 
slaveholding  States  would  yield  faithful  adherence  to  that  entire 
action.  All  of  the  various  measures  of  settlement  were  in  strict 
conformity  with  their  desires,  except  the  one  admitting  Cali 
fornia  as  a  State  of  the  Union.  Upon  the  expediency  of  this 

;  measure,  separately  considered,  the  people  of  Georgia  were,  in 
{  some  measure,  divided  in  opinion ;  but  respect  for  the  other  party 
to  the  controversy,  who  had  so  largely  conformed  to  their  views 
by  passing  the  other  measures  of  the  adjustment,  would  cause 
even  those  who  regarded  it  as  inexpedient  and  unconstitutional 
to  abide  by  it  honorably  and  peaceably.  "As  for  Georgia,  her 
choice  is  fraternity  and  Union,  with  constitutional  rights — her 
alternative,  self-preservation  by  all  the  means  which  a  favoring 
Providence  may  place  at  her  disposal,"  and  the  people  of  the 
North  were  admonished  to  pay  heed  to  the  voice  of  one  of  the 
"Old  Thirteen."8 

The   resolutions  declared   that  Georgia  held  the  American 

•  Union  secondary  in  importance  only  to  the  rights  and  principles 
it  was  designed  to  perpetuate.  If  the  original  thirteen  States 
to  the  compact  found  the  Union  impossible  without  compromise, 
the  then  thirty-one  might  yield  somewhat  in  the  conflict  of 
opinion  and  policy.  In  this  spirit,  the  State  of  Georgia  had 
naturally  considered  the  recent  acts  of  Congress,  it  was  declared. 
The  fourth  was  the  only  resolution  that  contained  anything  that 
could  in  any  way  be  regarded  as  a  threat,  or  a  menace.  It  stated 

7.  Whig  Almanac,  1851,  p.  64. 

8.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  pp.  11-19. 

86 


that,  in  the  judgment  of  the  convention,  the  State  of  Georgia 
would,  and  ought  to,  resist,  even  to  a  disruption  of  the  Union,  as 
a  last  resort,  any  future  act  of  Congress  abolishing  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  without  the  consent  and  petition  of 
the  slave  owners  there;  any  act  suppressing  the  slave  trade  be 
tween  the  States,  any  act  abolishing  slavery  in  places  within  the 
slaveholding  States,  any  act  refusing  admittance  to  any  Terri 
tory  applying  therefor,  because  of  the  existence  of  slavery  there 
in,  or  any  act  repealing  or  modifying  the  laws  then  in  force 
for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves.  The  last  resolution  stated 
that  upon  the  faithful  execution  of  the  fugitive  slave  act,  by 
the  proper  authorities,. depended  the  preservation  of  the  Union.9 

The  preamble  was  adopted  by  the  decisive  vote  of  236  to  23  ;10 
and  its  publication  and  wide  circulation  caused  a  reaction  in 
public  opinion  throughout  the  South,  and  created  the  opinion 
were  as  nothing  compared  with  the  necessity  for  preserving  the 
that  all  of  the  wrongs  which  that  section  had  previously  suffered 
Union.  This  change  of  opinion  upon  the  part  of  the  people  was 
due  to  the  efforts  of  nearly  all  of  the  Georgia  Whigs  in  combina 
tion  with  a  strong  section  of  Democrats  from  the  Northern 
counties  of  the  State,  who  followed  the  lead  of  Howell  Cobb.11 
It  is  thus  seen  that  no  one  party  can  claim  exclusive  credit  for 
the  work  of  stemming  the  popular  movement  in  opposition  to  the 
compromise  settlement. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  proceedings  of  the  convention 
met  with  the  decided  approval  of  an  overwhelming  majority  of 
the  delegates,  many  in  attendance  felt  the  need  of  a  new  politi 
cal  organization  that  would  more  firmly  uphold  the  principles  of 
the  compromise  measure.  Accordingly,  on  the  night  of  December 
12,  1850,  a  meeting  of  the  prominent  members  was  held  between 
the  sessions.12  The  result  was  the  organization  of  the  Constitu 
tional  Union  Party,  which  was  largely  the  work  of  Toombs  and 
Stephens.  All  friends  of  the  Union  were  invited  to  join  the  new 
organization,  and  Howell  Cobb,  a  Democrat,  was  selected  to  run 
as  its  candidate  for  Governor  in  1851.  The  preamble  and  reso- 


9.   Journal  of  the  Convention,  pp.  19-20. 

10.  Ibid,  p.  21. 

11.  Phillips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  p.  165. 

12.  Stephens,  The  War  Between  the  States,  Vol.  II,  p.  176;  PhUlips,  Georgia  and 
State  Rights,  p.  166. 

8? 


lutions  served  as  its  platform,  which  became  famous  as  the 
Georgia  Platform  of  1850.13 

In  the  State  campaign  the  Union  party  was  opposed  by 
another  called  the  Southern  Rights  Party,  whose  platform,  based 
in  the  main  upon  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798 
and  1799,  claimed  that  Southern  rights  had  been  entirely  disre 
garded  by  the  compromise  settlement.14  It  selected  as  its  candi 
date  for  the  Governorship,  ex-Governor  McDonald,  a  Democrat, 
whose  part  at  Nashville  we  have  already  called  attention  to.  In 
its  following  this  party  counted  the  major  part  of  the  Democrat^ 
of  the  State.15 

The  campaign  was  exciting.  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb, 
were  very  much  in  evidence,  and  as  the  contest  became  heated 
they  redoubled  their  efforts.16  Toombs  traveled  from  one  end  of 
the  State  to  the  other  making  speeches  in  favor  of  the  candidacy 
of  Cobb  and  the  acceptance  of  the  compromise.  His  previous 
ultra  speeches  in  Congress  laid  him  open  to  the  charge  of  incon 
sistency,  and  more  than  once  proved  a  stumbling  block  during 
the  progress  of  the  campaign.  While  speaking  at  Lexington,  the 
county  seat  of  Oglethorpe  county,  a  supporter  of  McDonald,  with 
whom  he  had  divided  debate,  took  for  his  text  a  particularly  in 
flammatory  speech  that  Toombs  had  delivered  in  the  National 
House  of  Representatives  during  the  excitement  of  the  speaker- 
ship  contest,  and  compared  it  with  his  present  words  in  favor 
of  compromise.  Toombs  in  reply  said :  ' '  If  there  is  anything  in 
my  Hamilcar  speech  that  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  measures 
which  I  have  supported  here  to-day  with  reasons  which  my  oppo 
nent  confesses  by  his  silence  he  cannot  answer,  I  repudiate  it. 
If  th  gentleman  takes  up  my  abandoned  errors,  let  him  defend 
them."17  He  thus  broke  out  of  a  trap  and  at  the  same  time 
turned  tables  upon  his  adversary  in  a  manner  that  was  charac 
teristic  of  him. 

As  a  result  of  the  canvass  Howell  Cobb  was  elected  Governor 
over  McDonald  by  a  majority  of  more  than  18,000,  and  the  Leg 
islature  elected  was  overwhelmingly  Union.  The  Senate  member 


13.  Phillips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  p.  166. 

14.  Stovall,  Life  of  Toombs,  p.  87. 

15.  Phillips,  Georgia  and  State  Bights,  p.  166. 

16.  Stovall,  Life  of  Toombs,  p.  92. 

17.  Reed,  The  Brother's  War,  pp.  214-216. 

88 


ship  was  composed  of  thirty-nine  Union  and  eight  Southern 
Rights  men;  and  the  House  of  one-hundred  and  four  Union  to 
twenty-nine  of  their  opponents.18  Nearly  all  of  the  Georgia 
Whigs,  and  Howell  Cobb's  Democratic  followers  from  the  north 
ern  part  of  the  State,  had  supported  the  Union  ticket.19 

The  organization  and  later  success  of  the  Constitutional  Union 
Party  had  far-reaching  consequences.  It  erected  a  bulwark  against 
the  further  spread  of  the  disunion  movement,  not  only  in  Georgia, 
but  in  the  other  States  of  the  lower  South.20  By  planting  itself 
firmly  upon  the  support  of  the  compromise  principles,  the  party 
won  a  decisive  victory  in  the  State  campaign,  which  was  a 
potent  factor  in  awakening  a  sincere  desire  for  peace  and  har 
mony  throughout  the  section.  Thereafter  the  Secessionists,  de 
feated  in  their  immediate  aims,  accepted  the  Georgia  Platform 
as  a  declaration  setting  forth  the  limit  of  what  they  were  willing 
to  concede  to  the  North.21 

While  opposition  to  measures  that  were  regarded  as  infringe-  ! 
ments  upon   Southern  rights  was  quite  general  in  the  South,  / 
hostile  sentiment  with  regard  to  Congressional  action  in  refer 
ence  to  the  Territories  was  more  pronounced  in  South  Carolina  i 
and  in  Mississippi  than  in  any  of  the  other  slaveholding  States.  , 
Mississippi  is  classed  with  South  Carolina  owing  to  the  fact  that ; 
she   was   thoroughly   indoctrinated   with   the   principles   of  the  I 
South  Carolina  school  of  politicians.22     This  process  of  indoc 
trination  began  soon  after,  and  in  consequence  of,  the  address 
which  Southern  members  of  Congress,  under  the  influence  of 
Calhoun,  had  issued  to  the  South  in  January,  1849,23  and  as  we 
have  already  seen,  its  more  immediate  manifestation  was  the 
calling  of  the  Nashville  Convention.     The  spirit  of  opposition 
thus  awakened  was  kept  alive  by  ambitious  leaders,  and  when 
the  compromise  measures  were  passed  by  Congress  an  influential 
portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  Mississippi  were  in  a  proper  frame 
of  mind  to  resist  them  even  to  the  extent  of  dissolving  the  Union. 

The  most  influential  man  in  Mississippi,  barring  Jefferson 
Davis,  was  Governor  John  A.  Quitman,  an  avowed  and  active 


18.  Whig  Almanac,   1852,  p.  56. 

19.  Phillips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  p.  166. 

20.  Stovall,  Life  of  Toombs,  p.  81. 

21.  Du  Bose,  Life  of  Yancey,  p.  295. 

22.  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  p.  282. 

23.  Ibid,  p.  169. 

89 


advocate  of  secession,  to  whom  Southern  radicals  looked  for  lead 
ership.  His  case,  which  was  typical  of  several  Southerners  of 
the  "Fire  Eater"  class,  deserves  brief  mention  here.  He  was  a 
Northern  man  by  birth,  being  a  native  of  the  State  of  New 
York.  After  arriving  at  manhood  he  had  made  his  way  to  Mis 
sissippi  where  he  became  a  successful  lawyer.  When  the  Mexican 
war  broke  out,  he  was  given  a  command  in  the  Mississippi  forces, 
served  with  distinction  in  Mexico,  and,  by  reason  of  the  popu 
larity  thus  gained,  was  elected  Governor  of  the  State  in  1849. 

His  active  efforts  in  behalf  of  Southern  rights  began  with  his 
inauguration.  A  few  days  prior  to  that  event  he  received  a 
letter,  January  1,  1850,  signed  by  the  Senators  and  Representa 
tives  in  Congress  from  Mississippi,  including  Senator  Henry  S. 
Foote,  advising  him  that  in  their  opinion  California  would  be 
admitted  to  the  Union,  during  that  session  of  Congress,  with  a 
Constitution  excluding  slavery,  and  stating  that  they  would  be 
greatly  pleased  to  have  such  expression  from  the  Legislature,  the 
Governor,  and,  if  possible,  the  people,  as  would  clearly  indicate 
the  course  which  Mississippi  deemed  it  proper  to  pursue  in  the 
new  emergency.24  In  his  inaugural  address,  ten  days  later,  Gov 
ernor  Quitman  devoted  considerable  time  to  the  sectional  issue. 
Slavery  was  declared  to  be  an  institution  tolerated  by  the 
Supreme  Being,  and  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  South.  The 
Congressional  action  against  its  perpetuation  was  vigorously  de 
nounced,  and  he  pledged  himself  to  firmly  execute  the  will  of  the 
people  of  Mississippi,  as  recently  indicated,25  to  the  extent  of  his 
constitutional  powers.26  It  was  on  account  of  this  pronounced 
and  decisive  stand  in  reference  to  Congressional  action  touching 
the  institution  of  slavery  that  Southern  radicals  turned  to  him 
for  leadership.27 

"When  Texas  was  about  to  take  armed  possession  of  the  terri 
tory  in  dispute  with  New  Mexico,  he  was  looked  to  for  aid  and 
advice  by  the  resistance  party  in  that  State.  Should  the  Presi 
dent  order  the  United  States  troops  stationed  in  that  quarter 
to  resist  their  attempts  to  enforce  jurisdiction,  would  he  can- 


24.  Cljiihorne,   Life  of  Quitman,  Vol.  II,  p.  34. 

25.  Through   the   State   Convention  of   October,    1849,   the   one  that  proposed   the 
Nashville  Convention. 

20.   Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  Vol.  II,  pp.  21-24. 
27.   Ibid,  p.  21. 

90 


didly  inform  them  how  far  Mississippi  was  prepared  to  redeem 
the  pledge  made  by  her  members  in  the  Nashville  Convention? 
Would  she  stand  by  Texas  in  the  contest?28  His  reply  stated 
that  if  Texas  stood  firmly  in  defense  of  her  rights  he  would  not 
be  found  wanting  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  but  what  he  was 
waiting  for  was  her  response  to  the  $10,000,000  bribe,  as  he  ex 
pressed  it.  Just  as  soon  as  he  became  satisfied  that  a  collision 
of  arms  was  prabable  he  would  convene  the  Legislature  upon  the 
shortest  possible  notice,  in  order  to  adopt  efficient  measures  for 
aid,  and  he  had  no  doubt  that  the  other  Southern  States  would 
do  the  same.29  But  the  acceptance  by  Texas  of  the  so-called 
$10,000,000  bribe  removed  the  possibility  of  his  forcing  the  issue 
to  a  clash  of  arms  with  the  National  Government  upon  that  ques 
tion. 

The  enactment  of  the  compromise  measures  produced  great 
excitement  in  Mississippi,  as  had  been  the  case  in  Georgia.  With 
out  in  any  way  consulting  the  people  or  ascertaining  their  opin 
ions  as  to  the  advisability  or  expediency  of  the  move,  Governor 
Quitman  issued  a  proclamation  calling  a  special  session  of  the 
Legislature  to  meet  November  18,  I860.30  According  to  his  own 
statement  he  had  not  fully  digested  a  program  of  the  measures 
he  intended  to  recommend  to  the  Legislature,  but  he  proposed 
calling  a  State  convention  to  consider  Federal  relations,  and  as 
he  saw  no  remedy  short  of  separation  from  the  Northern  States, 
his  views  of  State  action  would  look  to  secession.31 

In  his  message  to  the  Legislature  he  presented  his  views  on 
the  slavery  question  in  a  clear  and  pointed  manner,32  and  later 
on,  in  a  special  message,  recommended  a  standing  army  for  the 
defense  of  the  State.  The  Legislature  enacted  legislation  in  con 
formity  with  his  wishes.  A  bill  was  passed  calling  a  convention 
of  the  people  of  the  State  to  meet  in  November,  1851,  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  into  consideration  the  relations  of  Mississippi 
to  the  Federal  Government.33  The  Governor 's  position  was  fully 


28.  Henderson    to    Quitman,    July    22,    1850.      Claiborne,    Life   of    Quitman,    Vol. 
11,  p.   41. 

29.  Quitman  to  Henderson.   August   18.   1850.     Ibid.  p.  42. 

30.  Cong.   Globe,   32   Cong.,    1   Sess.,   Appendix,   p.   283;    Claiborne,   Life  of   Quit 
man,  Vol.  II,  p.  43. 

31.  Quitman  to  Seabrook,   September  29,   1850,   Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  Vol. 
II,  p.   37. 

32.  Ibid,  pp.  46-51. 

33.  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  p.  283. 

91 


endorsed,  and  resolutions  censuring  Senator  Henry  S.  Foote  for 
his  support  of  the  compromise  measures,  and  declaring  that  the 
interests  of  Mississippi  were  unsafe  in  his  hands,  were  adopted.34 
Foote 's  five  colleagues  in  Congress  from  Mississippi  had  been 
actively  opposed  to  the  compromise  and  were  much  offended 
because  of  his  support  of  the  adjustment.  The  censure  was  the 
result  of  their  influence.35 

As  in  Georgia,  the  struggle  over  the  acceptance  of  the  com 
promise  measures  in  Mississippi  had  the  effect  of  dividing  the 
people  of  the  State  into  two  political  parties.  After  the  return 
of  Foote 's  colleagues  from  Washington  they  joined  with  Gov 
ernor  Quitman  in  the  organization  of  a  new  political  party, 
called  the  State  Rights  Party  of  Mississippi.  All  who  were 
opposed  to  the  recent  Congressional  adjustment  were  invited  to 
join  this  organization.36  It  received  the  support  of  a  majority 
of  the  old  line  Democrats  and  of  a  few  State  Rights  Whigs,  and 
it  continued  under  its  original  name  from  its  formation,  in  No 
vember,  18501,  until  the  Democratic  State  Convention,  June  16, 
1851,  when  it  took  the  name  of  the  Democratic  State  Rights 
Party.37  Its  purpose,  as  its  name  implies,  was  to  promote  the  in 
terests  of  State  rights.  The  exceedingly  bitter  and  disloyal 
speech  delivered  by  Langdon  Cheves,  of  South  Carolina,  at  the 
November  session  of  the  Nashville  Convention,  printed  and 
widely  circulated  within  the  State,  became  the  text -book  of  the 
new  party.38 

When  Foote  reached  home,  he  took  immediate  steps  to  coun 
teract  the  disunion  movement  and  to  vindicate  his  course  in  Con 
gress.  Governor  Quitman  was  challenged  to  discuss  the  pending 
question  in  public.  He  accepted,  but  was  taken  ill  upon  the  day 
set  for  the  debate  and  could  not  meet  his  opponent.  Foote,  how 
ever,  improved  the  opportunity  to  address  the  assembled  crowds 
and  announced  his  intention  of  personally  touring  the  State  and 
urging  the  people  to  meet  in  convention  at  Jackson  upon  the  very 
day  that  the  special  session  of  the  Legislature  assembled  there. 
He  soon  after  went  over  the  State,  made  about  forty  public 


34.  Foote,    Casket   of   Reminiscences,    p.    352;    Garner,    The    First    Struggle    Over 
Secession  in  Mississippi,  p.  95. 

35.  Foote,  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  p.  352. 

36.  Ibid,  pp.  352-353. 

37.  Garner,  The  First  Struggle  Over  Secession  in  Mississippi,  p.  99. 

38.  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  p.  282. 

92 


speeches,  and  on  the  day  that  the  Legislature  met  a  convention 
of  fifteen  -«nndred  delegates  gathered  at  the  City  Hall.39  Resolu 
tions  were  adopted  endorsing  Foote's  support  of  the  compro 
mise  measures,  advocating  their  support  by  the  people  of  Missis 
sippi,  condemning  the  Governor's  attitude  in  relation  thereto, 
and  denouncing  the  secession  movement.  But  by  far  the  most 
important  result  of  the  convention  was  the  organization  of  the 
Union  Party;  the  purpose  of  which  was  to  bring  about  the  ac 
ceptance  of  the  compromise  settlement  of  1850.  It  counted 
among  its  supporters  almost  all  of  the  Whigs,  and  conservative 
Democrats  who  sympathized  with  its  principles.40 

The  Unionists  put  forth  strenuous  efforts  to  decide  the  matter 
at  issue  between  the  two  new  parties  in  the  State  election  of  1851. 
Foote  was  selected  as  their  candidate  for  Governor,  and  no 
stronger  man  for  the  place  could  have  been  found  under  the  cir 
cumstances.  The  necessity  for  making  corresponding  efforts  was 
fully  realized  by  the  State  Rights  men,  but  by  the  spring  of  1851 
they  began  to  despair  of  success.  The  crisis  of  "Union"  and 
"Disunion"  caused  many  of  the  more  timid  Democrats  to  hesi 
tate  in  their  zeal  for  secession,  and  the  far-sighted  men  of  their 
party  clearly  saw  that  in  the  prevailing  state  of  public  opinion 
it  was  impossible  to  carry  a  State  Convention  whose  ultimate 
object  was  a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Moreover,  it  was  felt  that 
the  peaceful  attitude  assumed  by  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Vir 
ginia,  would  fully  justify  Mississippi  in  refusing  to  take  a  step 
which  those  whose  interests  were  identical  with  hers  would  not 
aid  her  in  maintaining.41  None  saw  the  trend  of  events  more 
clearly  than  Governor  Quitman.  In  a  letter  to  Colonel  Preston, 
of  South  Carolina,  March  25,  1851,  he  wrote  that  Mississippi  was 
not  prepared  for  final  action,  and  that  South  Carolina  would 
have  to  take  the  lead  in  the  secession  movement  and  act  fear 
lessly  for  herself.  The  population  of  his  State,  he  said,  being 
composed  mainly  of  recent  immigrants,  was  not  homogenious, 
and  no  man,  however  popular  he  might  be,  could  give  direction 
to  the  masses.42.  Although  the  subject  more  properly  belongs  to 


39.  toote,  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  p.  353. 

40.  Garner,  The  First  Struggle  Over  Secession  in  Mississippi,  pp.  98-99. 

41.  A  State  Rights  Man  to  Quitman,  May  20,   1851,  Claiborne,   Life  of  Quitman, 
Vol.  II,  p.  121. 

42.  Ibid,  p.  123. 

93 


the  next  chapter,  we  might  call  attention  in  passing  to  the  evi 
dence  here  presented  that  the  South  Carolina  leaders  were  look 
ing  to  Mississippi  for  the  initial  step  towards  secession. 

Nevertheless,  the  State  Rights  men  prepared  to  fight  the  mat 
ter  to  a  finish.  In  June,  1851,  they  assembled  in  State  conven 
tion  at  Jackson,  adopted  the  name  of  Democratic  State  Rights 
Party,  chose  General  Quitman  as  their  standard  bearer  to  oppose 
Foote  for  the  Governorship,  and  called  district  conventions  for 
the  nomination  of  Congressional  candidates.43  One  of  the  dele 
gates  informs  us  that  by  inquiry  of  all  men  met  on  his  way  to  the 
convention,  he  found  that  three  out  of  four  voters  were  in  favor 
of  Jefferson  Davis  as  the  party  candidate,  that  a  majority  of  the 
delegates  were  of  a  like  mind,  and  that  the  friends  of  Quitman 
only  secured  his  nomination  by  getting  a  note  from  Davis,  who 
was  ill  at  the  time,  in  which  the  latter  positively  refused  the 
position.44 

The  campaign  of  1851  was  very  bitterly  contested.  Missis 
sippi  was  in  a  state  of  great  excitement,  so  much  so  that  we  are 
informed  that  the  presence  of  ten  men  at  any  one  point  involved 
the  possibility  of  serious  trouble.  Foote  and  Quitman  conducted 
a  joint-canvass  which  began  at  Jackson.  Foote  opened  the  con 
test  by  charging  the  Democrats  with  disunion  aims,  and  he  as 
sailed  Quitman  and  his  followers  in  the  most  vehement  and  mer 
ciless  manner.45  In  this  contest  of  oratory,  Qutiman  was  no 
match  for  the  more  brilliant  and  versatile  Foote,  and  after  seven 
or  eight  appointments  they  came  to  blows  at  a  place  called  Sedge- 
ville,  and  the  joint-canvass  was  given  up.  Foote  kept  to  the 
original  schedule,  followed  two  days  behind  by  Quitman,  and  at 
every  place  where  he  spoke  he  boasted  that  Quitman  had  been 
whipped  and  driven  from  the  field  of  combat.  As  a  result  of 
these  developments  the  Democrats  become  disheartened  and  con 
ducted  their  campaign  in  a  very  feeble  manner.46 

The  election  of  delegates  to  the  general  State  Convention, 
which  had  been  called  by  a  special  session  of  the  Legislature  for 
the  purpose  of  considering  the  relations  of  Mississippi  to  the 


43.  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  Appendix,  p.  284. 

44.  Davis,  Recollections  of  Mississippi  and  of  Mississippians,  pp.  315-316. 

45.  Ibid,  p.  317;  Foote,  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  p.  354. 

46.  Foote,   Casket  of  Reminiscences,   pp.   354-355;   Davis,   Recollections  of  Missis 
sippi  and  of  Mississippians,  p.  318. 

94 


Federal  Government,  was  a  death  blow  to  the  hopes  of  the  seces 
sionists.  It  had  taken  place  in  September  preceding  the  election 
of  State  officers,  and  it  resulted  in  a  popular  majority  of  7,161 
for  the  Unionists.47  Foreseeing  inevitable  defeat,  because  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  State  had  thus  declared  themselves 
against  his  policy  on  the  slavery  question,  Quitman  resigned  his 
candidacy.48  The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Democratic  State 
Rights  Party  then  brought  Jefferson  Davis  forward  to  take  his 
place  and  the  campaign  continued.49  By  running  the  popu 
lar  Davis  upon  a  regular  Democratic  platform,  and  renouncing 
all  further  agitation  for  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  the  State 
Rights  leaders  hoped  to  check  the  movement  against  them  and 
win  the  votes  of  the  people.50  In  this  they  were  par 
tially  successful,  for  the  7,161  majority  at  the  Sep 
tember  election  was  reduced  to  a  majority  of  1,009  in 
favor  of  Foote  at  the  November  State  election.51  The  Whigs, 
together  with  many  Democrats,  who  believed  that  the  issue  in 
volved  disunion,  gave  their  support  to  Foote.52  As  in  Georgia, 
the  contest  in  Mississippi  was  not  strictly  along  party  lines. 

The  State  Convention,  for  considering  the  relations  of  the 
State  of  Mississippi  to  the  Federal  Government,  met  at  Jackson, 
November  10-17,  1851 ;  but  it  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the 
result  of  its  deliberations  would  be  pacific  in  character.  Fifty- 
six  counties  were  represented  by  ninety -three  delegates,  a  great 
majority  of  whom  were  Union  men.53  The  Democratic  majority 
in  the  State  when  the  canvass  began  was  estimated  at  8,000,54 
and  the  fact  that  the  Unionists  were  able  to  overcome  this  ad 
vantage  upon  the  part  of  their  opponents  and  win  with  over 
7,000  votes  shows  that  the  desire  for  peace  and  Union  was 
stronger  than  party  ties.  The  convention  adopted  resolutions 
declaring  that  the  right  of  secession  was  unsanctioned  by  the 


47.  Whig  Almanac,  1852,  p.  57. 

48.  Quitman  to  the  Democratic  State  Rights  Party  in  Mississippi,  Claiborne,  Life 
of  Quitman,  Vol.  II,  p.  146. 

49.  Davis,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  Vol.  I,  p.  20. 

50.  Foote,  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  p.  355. 

51.  Whig  Almanac,  1852,  p.  57;  Tribune  Almanac,  1852,  p.  44. 

52.  Davis,  Recollections  of  Mississippi  and  of  Mississippians,  p.  321. 

53.  Garner,  The  First  Struggle  Over  Secession  in  Mississippi,  p.   102. 

54.  Davis,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  Vol.  I,  p.  20. 


95 


Constitution,  and  rebuking  the  Legislature  for  calling  the  con 
vention  without  first  submitting  the  question  of  its  advisability 
.to  the  people.55 

By  means  of  this  action  the  people  of  Mississippi  checked  the 
movement  in  favor  of  secession,  and  placed  their  State  alongside 
of  Georgia  in  support  of  the  compromise  measures.  With  the 
State  Rights  movement  checked  in  the  cotton  States  of  the  Gulf 
region,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  pronounced  disunion  feeling 
in  the  States  of  the  border,  South  Carolina  was  left  to  act  alone. 


55.  For  the  history  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  see  Claiborne,  Life  of 
Quitman,  Vol.  II,  pp.  3652,  133-143,  148-151;  Cong.  Globe,  32  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
Appendix,  pp.  282-359. 


96 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE    SECESSION   MOVEMENT   IN   SOUTH   CAROLINA, 

1850-1852. 


One  of  our  prominent  citizens  writing  of  South  Carolina  in 
ante-bellum  days,  referred  to  that  commonwealth  as  "a  per 
petual  threatening  volcano,"1  and  the  phrase  has  a  singular  ap 
propriateness  when  applied  to  the  period  extending  from  the 
twenties,  especially,  down  to  the  outbreak  of  war.  To  carry  our 
volcano  figure  still  further  in  its  application  to  the  political 
situation  in  the  State,  it  might  be  added  that  there  were  three 
violent  eruptions  during  this  time:  the  first  over  the  protective 
tariff  legislation,  which  culminated  in  the  years  1832  and  1833 ; 
the  second,  over  the  acceptance  of  the  compromise  of  1850 ;  and 
the  third,  and  most  violent  of  all,  took  place  in  1860,  and  it  re 
sulted  in  the  actual  secession  of  the  State. 

Inquiry  into  the  reasons  for  the  political  unrest  in  South 
Carolina  discloses  an  economic  situation  that  furnished  the  chief 
cause  for  discontent.  The  only  industry  that  was  extensively 
carried  on  in  the  State  was  the  cultivation  of  cotton,  and  since 
the  early  twenties  the  planters  there  had  been  experiencing  the 
ruinous  effects  of  competition  with  the  cheaper  and  more  fertile 
lands  to  the  south  and  westward.  That  this  was  the  true  state 
of  affairs  we  gather  from  reading  an  address  delivered  by  James 
H.  Hammond  before  the  South  Carolina  Institute  at  its  first 
annual  fair,  November  20,  1849.  For  the  past  sixty  years,  he 
pointed  out,  their  State  had  been  a  purely  agricultural  one,  and 
labor  had  been  chiefly  devoted  to  the  production  of  one  market 
crop,  cotton.  The  value  of  this  staple  had  been  gradually  declin 
ing  for  many  years,  and  for  the  past  seven  or  eight  it  had  not 
afforded  a  net  income  of  four  and  one-half  per  cent  on  invested 
capital,  and  it  was  inevitable  that  profits  would  fall  still  lower. 

"The  consumption  of  cotton,"  he  continued,  "even  at  late 
average  prices,  cannot  keep  pace  with  our  increasing  capacity  to 
age  prices,  cannot  keep  pace  with  our  increasing  capacity  to 
produce  it ;  and  the  article  may  therefore  be  said  to  have  fairly 


1.   Sargent,  Public  Men  and  Events,  Vol.  II,  p.  377. 

97 


passed  that  first  stage  of  all  new  commercial  staples,  in  which 
prices  are  regulated  wholly  by  demand  and  supply,  and  to  have 
reached  that  in  which,  like  gold  and  silver,  its  value,  occasionally 
and  temporarily  affected  by  demand  and  supply,  will  in  the  main 
be  estimated  by  the  cost  of  production.  Now,  on  lands  that 
enable  the  planters  to  produce  an  average  crop  of  two  thousand 
pounds  of  ginned  cotton,  for  each  full  hand,  or  for  every 
thousand  dollars  of  capital  permanently  invested,  he  may  realize 
seven  per  cent  per  annum,  on  his  capital,  at  a  net  price  of  five 
cents  per  pound,  or  five  and  one-half  to  six  cents  in  our  Southern 
ports.  There  is  an  abundance  of  land  in  the  South  and  South 
west,  on  which,  unless  the  seasons  change  materially,  or  the 
worm  becomes  an  annual  visitor,  all  the  cotton  which  the  world 
will  consume  for  many  generations  to  come,  may  be  grown  at 
that  rate.  We  have  ample  slave  labor  to  cultivate  it;  and  the 
result  is  inevitable,  that  the  average  of  prices  must  soon  settle 
permanently  about  this  point. ' ' 

What  was  to  be  done  if  these  views  were  correct?  he  asked. 
But  a  small  portion  of  the  land  they  were  then  cultivating  would 
produce  two  thousand  pounds  of  ginned  cotton  to  the  hand ;  and 
it  was  thought  that  an  average  production  would  not  yield 
twelve  hundred  pounds,  and  a  great  many  planters  did  not  grow 
one  thousand  pounds  to  the  hand. 

A  thousand  pounds  at  five  cents  net  would  only  yield  about 
two  per  cent  on  the  capital  invested,  and  twelve  hundred,  only 
three  per  cent.  In  his  estimation  the  State  would  become 
utterly  impoverished  and  degraded  with  such  rates  of  income. 
Depopulation  would  rapidly  take  place.  Their  slaves  would  go 
first  and  that  institution  would  be  swept  away.  History  assured 
them  that  wherever  slavery,  from  which  they  had  previously 
reaped  such  great  benefits,  ceased.J;o  be  profitable,  it  had  ceased 
to  exist. 

* '  The  natural  increase  of  all  the  slaves  in  the  South,  since  the 
prohibition  of  the  African  Slave  Trade,  has  been  thirty  per  cent 
for  every  ten  years.  From  1810  to  1820,  the  increase  in  South 
Carolina  was  a  fraction  above  that  rate.  From  1820  to  1830, 
it  was  a  fraction  below  it.  But  from  1830  to  1840,  the  increase 
was  less  than  seven  per  cent  in  ten  years ;  and  the  census  re 
vealed  the  painful  and  ominous  fact  that  the  number  of  slaves 

98 


in  South  Carolina  was  eighty -three  thousand  less  than  it  should 
have  been.  No  war,  pestilence,  or  famine  had  visited  our  land. 
.  '-v  .  .  But  the  fact  is,  that  notwithstanding  the  compara 
tively  high  average  price  of  cotton  from  1830  to  1840,  these  slaves 
had  been  carried  off  by  their  owners,  at  the  rate  of  eight  thousand 
three-hundred  per  annum,  from  a  soil  producing  to  the  hand 
twelve  hundred  pounds  of  cotton,  on  the  average,  to  one  that 
yielded  eighteen  hundred  pounds.  And  there  is  every  reason  to 
apprehend  that  the  census  of  next  year  will  show  that  the  whole 
increase  of  the  last  decade,  which  must  amount  to  one  hundred 
thousand,  has  been  swept  off  by  the  still  swelling  tide  of  emigra 
tion." 

As  means  of  remedying  their  economic  condition  he  hit  the 
nail  upon  the  head  by  recommending  an  improvement  of  the 
agricultural  system,  the  fostering  of  commerce  and  manufactur 
ing,  and  proposing  that  they  manufacture  their  own  cotton.2 
The  idea  of  relieving  the  situation  by  the  fostering  of  commerce 
was  well  taken  hold  of  in  the  State.  By  connecting  the  cities  of 
Charleston  and  Memphis  by  railroad,  it  was  hoped  that  a  large 
volume  of  western  trade  would  be  turned  their  way,  and  that 
Charleston  would  become  a  great  commercial  port  in  consequence. 
The  agitation  of  this  project  was  vigorously  prosecuted,  es 
pecially  during  the  months  of  May  and  June,  1851.3 

After  he  had  seen  all  of  the  courts  of  Europe,  Prince  Murat 
in  comparison  pronounced  the  men  of  South  Carolina  the  most 
aristocratic,4  and  this  aristocratic  quality  entered  into  matters  of 
government,  and  furnishes  another  reason  for  the  extremely  sen 
sitive  attitude  of  the  State  in  regard  to  national  affairs.  Before 
the  war,  presidential  electors  were  chosen  by  the  Legislature, 
instead  of  by  the  people  as  in  other  States.  In  the  year  1850,  a 
Southern  man  wrote  as  follows:  "In  South  Carolina  the  great 
difficulty  is  that  the  people  never  have  but  one  side  of  the  ques 
tion.  If  it  could  be  in  that  State  as  in  Georgia  and  other  States, 
where  the  people  are  all  informed  by  means  of  public  discus 
sions,  the  public  mind  would  be  very  different  in  South  Carolina 


2.  Hammond.  An  Add-iss  Delivered  Before  the  South  Carolina  Institute  at  Its 
First  Annual  Fair,  on  the  20th  November,  1849.  See  also  Turner,  Rise  of  the  New 
West,  pp.  61-66,  for  other  evidence  regarding  the  economic  situation  in  the  State. 

3.  See  Charleston  Courier,  May-June,  1851.     A  report  of  the  committee  in  charge 
is  given  in  the  number  for  May  31,  1851. 

4.  Keyes,  Fifty  Years'  Observation  of  Men  and  Events,  p.   174. 

99 


from  what  it  is  now."5  The  Democratic  movement  in  favor  of 
anti-slavery  threatened  the  aristocratic  foundation  of  their 
society,  and  this,  together  with  the  economic  depression  there, 
made  the  times  favorable  for  the  agitation  of  secession  as  a 
remedy  for  the  disadvantages  which  they  felt  themselves  to  be 
under  in  the  Union. 

If  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures  occasioned  seces 
sion  struggles  in  Georgia  and  in  Mississippi,  it  is  a  foregone  con 
clusion  that  they  were  not  quietly  accepted  by  South  Carolina. 
They  were  not.  Governor  Seabrook,  in  pursuance  of  a  well- 
defined  policy  upon  the  part  of  his  State  to  look  elsewhere  for 
initial  action,  wrote  to  Governor  Quitman  of  Mississippi,  Septem 
ber  20,  1850,  that  the  aggravating  circumstances  under  which 
California  would  enter  the  Union  demanded  prompt  and  effective 
resistance  upon  the  part  of  the  slave-holding  States.  Was  Mis 
sissippi  prepared  to  assemble  her  Legislature,  or  to  adopt  some 
other  scheme  in  order  to  second  the  noble  effort  of  Georgia  ?6  As 
there  were  satisfactory  reasons  why  South  Carolina  should  pro 
ceed  cautiously,  he  needed  only  to  assure  Governor  Quitman  that, 
just  as  soon  as  the  Governors  of  two  or  more  States  assembled 
their  Legislatures  by  proclamation,  or  gave  some  other  evidence 
of  an  intention  to  act,  he  should  consider  it  his  duty,  unless  the 
nearness  of  the  regular  session  prevented,  to  call  together  the 
representatives  of  the  people  with  a  view  to  their  adoption  of 
measures  that  would  arrest  the  career  of  an  interested  and  des 
potic  majority.7 

Governor  Quitman,  who  in  the  meantime  had  called  a  special 
session  of  the  Legislature  of  Mississippi,  replied  that  he  had  not 
fully  digested  a  program  of  the  measures  that  he  would  recom 
mend'  to  the  Legislature  when  it  met,  but  he  assured  Governor 
Seabrook  that  his  views  of  State  action  would  look  to  secession.8 
This  reply  gave  the  greatest  satisfaction  to  the  South  Carolina 
Executive,  who  declared  that  Mississippi  would  be  the  Banner 
State  ' '  in  the  noble  contest  in  which  the  South  had  been  forced  to 
engage."  Should  the  ''gallant  commonwealth  adopt  the  decisive 


5.  M.    C.    Fulton    to   Howell    Cobb.    November    6.    1850.      Cobb    Mss.    Correspon 
dence. 

6.  The   Governor   of   Georgia   had   announced   his    intention   of   calling   a   special 
session  of  the  Legislature. 

7.  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  Vol.  II,  p.  36. 

8.  September  29,   1850.      Ibid,  p.   38. 

100 


course  suggested,"  South  Carolina  would  stand  by  her  side.  Sen 
timent  in  his  State  had  never  been  so  united  in  favor  of  resist 
ance,  but  the  general  desire  was  to  exhaust  the  joint-action 
scheme  before  an  independent  step  should  be  taken,  and  to  be\ 
careful  and  not  create  the  impression  that  South  Carolina  was 
anxious  to  take  the  lead  in  the  movement.  The  belief  was  preva 
lent  in  his  State,  he  explained,  that  the  cause  would  receive  a 
fatal  blow  should  they  attempt  to  lead  it. 

Then  followed  a  thinly-veiled  invitation  for  Mississippi  to 
take  the  first  step :  '  *  May  I  hope  that  Mississippi  will  begin  the 
patriotic  work,  and  allow  the  Palmetto  banner  the  prvilege  of  a 
place  in  her  ranks?"  and  as  thinly-veiled  instructions  followed 
the  above  hint :  ' '  The  desire  of  our  public  men  is  that  the  Nash 
ville  Convention,  the  Georgia  Convention,  or  the  Legislature  of 
Mississippi,  should  recommend  the  call  of  a  Southern  Congress, 
to  be  composed  of  delegates  elected  by  State  conventions,  either, 
as  the  weaker  measure,  for  the  purpose  of  consultation,  their 
decisions  to  be  ratified  by  conventions  of  the  States  represented, 
or  to  be  direct.  The  first  course  will  produce  delay,  and  may 
enable  Congress  and  the  politicians  of  the  North  to  so  shape 
their  policy  as  to  create  the  impression  among  the  unreflecting 
and  timid  in  the  South,  that  every  cause  of  danger  to  our  insti 
tutions  has  been  removed.  A  Southern  Congress,  with  full 
authority  on  the  part  of  the  States  represented,  to  secede  from 
the  Union  forthwith,  or  to  submit  to  the  supreme  authorities  of 
the  country  propositions  for  a  new  bargain  between  the  States, 
by  which  equality  among  the  members  of  the  Confederacy  and 
the  protection  of  Southern  property  shall,  in  the  future,  be  put 
beyond  the  possibility  of  hazard — either  of  these  measures  (we 
prefer  the  former,  because  in  the  event  of  a  conflict,  we  shall 
have  a  government  actually  in  operation),  emanating  from  the 
Nashville  Convention,  or  any  Southern  State  except  South  Caro 
lina,  for  reasons  already  hinted,  will  go  far  to,  if  it  does  not 
entirely  accomplish  the  great  object  it  is  desirable  to  effect."1 

The  plan  above  outlined  was  faithfully  followed  at  the 
second  session  of  the  Nashville  Convention.  A  resolution  recom 
mending  a  Congress  of  the  Southern  States,  to  be  composed  of 


9.   Seabrook  to  Quitman,  October  23,  1850,  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  37-38. 

101 


delegates  entrusted  with  full  power  to  deliberate  and  act,  was 
recommended  by  the  Committee  on  Eesolutions  and  adopted  by 
the  convention  ;10  and  a  resolution  in  substantial  accord  with  the 
one  adopted  was  earlier  reported  to  the  committee,  during  the 
call  of  States,  by  J.  J.  Davenport  of  Mississippi.11  While  it  can 
not  be  confidently  asserted  that  this  action  resulted  from  influ 
ences  exerted  by  the  South  Carolina  Governor,  appearances,  it 
must  be  admitted,  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  such  a  conclusion. 
At  all  events,  Mississippi  twice  took  action  in  accord  with  recom 
mendations  that  came  from  public  men  of  South  Carolina.12 

As  Governor  Seabrook's  letters  have  shown,  sentiment  in 
South  Carolina  was  decidedly  in  opposition  to  the  compromise 
measures  in  general,  and  to  the  admission  of  California  in  par 
ticular.  In  no  other  State  of  the  South  were  the  Democrats,  for 
the  most  part  small  farmers  and  tradesmen,  as  a  whole  committed 
to  the  doctrines  of  Calhoun.  In  South  Carolina  the  Calhoun  men 
controlled  political  affairs  so  completely  that  party  divisions,  as 
ordinarily  understood,  hardly  existed.13  The  majority  opinion 
found  clear  and  forceful  expression  in  a  pamphlet  written  by 
W.  H.  Trescott,  the  historian,  at  the  suggestion  of  prominent 
men  in  the  State,  and  intended  to  strengthen  Southern  resoltuion. 

This  short  article  of  twenty  pages  begins  by  laying  down  the 
principle  that  political  institutions  are  never  destroyed  by  in 
fluences  foreign  to  themselves,  and  substantiating  it  by  examples 
drawn  from  European  history.  The  warning,  it  was  claimed, 
assumed  a  special  sifinificance  ''at  times  like  the  present,  when 
the  marked  characteristic  of  political  life  is  the  violent  and  un 
compromising  antagonism  of  great  interests."  Everywhere  in 
the  civilized  world  great  and  contending  interests  struggled  for 
power  as  a  monopoly,  not  as  a  trust,  and  the  truth  was  illustrat 
ing  itself  with  destructive  energy.  The  United  States  had 
reached  this  point  in  its  history,  and  the  legislation  or  me 
present  Congress  had  worked  a  revolution  by  basing  its  action 
upon  a  principle  recognized  by  only  a  portion  of  the  people.  By 
thus  becoming  the  exponent  of  one  class,  it  became  the  enemy  of 


10.  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig.  November  19,  1850. 

11.  Ibid,  November  15,  1850. 

12.  The  first  time  was   when   Mississippi   called  the  Nashville  Convention,   at   the 
suggestion  of  Calhoun. 

13.  Brown,  The  Lower  South,  p.  123. 

102 


the  other,  and  forced  upon  half  of  the  citizens  the  bitter  alterna 
tive  of  becoming  subjects  or  rebels.  The  California  bill  had 
been  passed  and  the  institution  of  slavery  had  been  outlawed. 
What  course  of  action  were  they  of  the  South  to  follow  as  a 
slaveholding  people  ? 

The  vindication  of  slavery  was  declared  to  be  no  part  of  his 
purpose.  Providence  had  placed  them  in  the  midst  of  it,  and  it 
had  solved  for  them  the  most  dangerous  of  social  questions — 
the  relation  of  labor  and  capital  Where  Gad  had  placed  them, 
there  they  were  resolved  to  remain  "between  the  graves  of  our 
fathers  and  the  homes  of  our  children."  The  only  questions 
open  for  discussion  were  what  dangers  were  there  to  meet  and 
what  were  their  means  for  meeting  them?  As  historical  truths 
affording  answers  to  these  questions,  he  submitted  the  following 
propositions : 

"1.  That  all  legitimate  government  is  but  the  development 
of  some  principles  that  underlie  the  social  institutions  of  a  nation, 
and  that  therefore  thte  test  of  national  health  is  a  perfect 
sympathy  between  national  government  and  the  popular  institu 
tions. 

* '  2.  That  the  institutions  of  the  slaveholding  States  are 
peculiar  in  their  nature,  differing  in  most  essential  features  of 
political  character  from  the  political  system  of  the  rest  of  the 
country. 

"3.  That  this  difference  has  excited  a  sectional  jealousy, 
which,  in  the  political  history  of  the  country  has  deepened  into: 
sectional  hostility,  and  that  by  recent  legislation,  the  Federal 
Government  has  declared  itself  the  ally  of  the  North  and  North 
west  against  the  institutions  of  the  South. 

"4.  That  in  such  a  political  crisis  the  only  safety  of  the 
South  is  the  etsablishment  of  a  political  center  within  itself;  in 
simpler  words,  the  formation  of  an  independent  nation." 

The  above  states  the  problem  and  its  solution  as  it  appeared 
to  Mr.  Trescott,  and  he  discarded  the  Calhoun  plan  of  adjust 
ment.  Of  the  latter  he  wrote  as  follows:  "It  is  a  readjustment 
of  the  constitutional  compact,  so  as  to  recognize  the  independence 
of  each  section  as  to  its  domestic  policy.  The  formation  of  a 
Union  somewhat  analogous  to  the  German  Federation  by  which 
a  Zollverein  should  regulate  our  industrial  policy  and  a  Diet 

103 


control  our  foreign  relations.  That  this  can  be  obtained  from 
the  North  without  force,  we  do  not  believe."14  Although  Cal- 
houn's  name  is  not  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  foregoing 
reference,  that  he  is  the  one  referred  to  seems  certain.  The  rest 
of  the  pamphlet  is  devoted  to  an  elaboration  and  explanation 
of  the  propositions  submitted,  and,  taken  all  in  all,  it  is  a  candid 
and  succinct  statement  of  the  Southern  situation  as  it  appeared 
to  South  Carolina  radicals.  The  author  simply  gave  written 
expression  to  the  thoughts  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  many  of 
his  fellow  citizens  as  the  sequel  establishes. 

The  Legislature,  which  assembled  in  December,  1850,  took 
decided  action  looking  towards  the  formation  of  a  Southern  Con 
federacy.  Governor  Seabrook,  true  to  the  declarations  previ 
ously  made  to  Governor  Quitman,  submitted  a  message  in  which 
he  asserted  the  right  of  secession,  and  declared  that  the  time  had 
arrived  for  the  exercise  of  powers  of  self -protection.15  Measures 
were  taken  for  the  exercise  of  such  powers.  The  Legislature,  on 
December  20,  passed  an  act  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
eighteen  deputies  to  a  Southern  Congress,  four  to  be  chosen  by 
the  Legislature  and  two  by  the  qualified  voters  in  each  Congres 
sional  district.  This,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  in  strict  accord 
with  the  recommendations  of  the  second  session  of  the  Nashville 
Convention.  The  same  act  made  provision  for  the  election  of 
delegates  to  a  State  convention ;  the  people  in  each  district  in  the 
commonwealth  were  to  select  as  many  delegates  as  they  sent 
members  to  the  Legislature.  The  second  Monday  in  October, 
1851,  was  the  designated  time  for  the  election  of  deputies  to  a 
Southern  Congress;  the  delegates  to  the  convention  were  to  be 
chosen  on  the  second  Monday  in  February,  1851,  and  the  day 
following.  The  State  Convention  was  to  be  held  in  the  city  of 
Columbia,  but  the  Legislature  set  no  definite  time  for  its  assem 
bling,  and  left  it  for  the  Governor  to  call  whenever,  at  any  time 
before  the  meeting  of  the  next  Legislature,  the  conjuncture  of  a 
Southern  Congress  should  have  happened.  In  case  the  Governor 
did  not  call  it  before  the  assembling  of  the  next  Legislature,  that 
body  could,  by  a  majority  vote,  fix  the  time  of  meeting.  The 
purpose  of  the  convention,  as  set  forth  in  the  act,  was  to  con- 


14.  Trescott,  The  Position  and  Course  of  the  South. 

15.  Senate  Journal,  1850,  pp.  25-30. 

104 


sider  the  proceedings  and  recommendations  of  a  Congress  of  the 
slaveholding  States,  if  the  same  should  be  held,  and  to  take  into 
consideration  the  general  welfare  of  the  State. 

Furthermore,  the  Governor  was  requested  to  transmit  a  copy 
of  the  act  to  each  of  the  Governors  in  the  other  States  of  the 
South,  and  to  urge  upon  them  the  desire  of  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  that  they  forthwith  provide  for  the  election  of  deputies 
by  their  States  to  meet  the  South  Carolina  deputation  at  the 
city  of  Montgomery,  Alabama,  on  the  second  Monday  of  January, 
1852. 16  South  Carolina,  doubtless  profiting  by  the  experience 
of  1832-1833,  clearly  intended  to  exhaust  every  effort  to  assure 
the  cooperation  of  other  Southern  States  before  making  her  final 
move. 

Another  act,  passed  at  the  same  session,  provided  for  the  de 
fense  of  the  State.  A  Board  of  Ordinance  was  established,  con 
sisting  of  an  Adjutant,  Inspector  General,  and  five  other  persons, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  examine  the  condition  of  all  ordnance  and 
military  stores,  and  to  purchase  supplies.  This  same  board  was 
authorized  to  appoint  scientific  and  competent  military  engineers, 
who  were  to  examine  and  provide  works  for  the  defense  of  the 
coast  of  the  State.  Brigade  encampments  were  to  be  held  yearly, 
instead  of  every  two  years  as  formerly,  and  fines  were  to  be 
imposed  in  cases  of  non-attendance.17  An  act  granting  a  charter 
to  the  South  Carolina  Atlantic  Steam  Navigation  Company  con 
tained  the  stipulation  that  the  ships  of  the  company  should  be 
so  constructed  that  they  could  easily  be  converted  into  war  ves 
sels,  and  turned  over  to  the  State  in  case  of  war.18 

On  the  16th  of  December,  Seabrook  ceased  to  be  Governor 
and  was  succeeded  by  John  H.  Means,  a  worthy  secessionist  suc 
cessor.  On  the  day  after  his  term  of  office  ended,  Seabrook  wrote 
a  letter  to  Governor  Quitman  which  is  instructive  by  reason  of 
its  portrayal  of  the  South  Carolina  situation  during  the  legisla 
tive  session  of  1850.  In  the  Legislature,  it  was  stated,  there  was 
only  one  man  who  favored  ultimate  submission,  and  even  he  ad 
vocated  the  policy  of  a  Southern  Congress.19  On  some  points 


16.  Acts  of  South  Carolina,  December,  1850,  pp.  55-57. 

17.  Ibid,  pp.  57-59. 

18.  Ibid,  pp.  29-34. 

19.  This  was  B.  F.  Perry  of  Greenville  County.     See  his  Union  speech,  delivered 
in  the  Legislature,  December  11,   1850.     Perry,  Biographical  Sketches,  pp.   111-113. 

105 


there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  among  the  members  of  the  Leg 
islature  ;  some  favoring  the  calling  of  a  Southern  Congress  with 
out  looking  to  another  State  to  take  the  lead,  and  others  pre 
ferring  that  Mississippi  take  the  initial  step.  This,  it  will  be 
noticed,  was  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  act  providing  for  the 
election  of  deputies  to  a  Southern  Congress,  and  for  the  election 
of' delegates  to  a  State  Convention.  Had  he  convened  the  Legis 
lature  two  or  three  weeks  before  the  regular  meeting,  he  felt  sure 
that  South  Carolina  would  not  then  have  been  a  member  of  the 
[Union,  such  was  the  state  of  the  public  mind  at  the  time.  As 
for  the  people,  they  were  far  ahead  of  their  leaders  and  could 
be  restained  with  difficulty.  The  belief  that  Mississippi  and 
other  States  would  act  had  had  a  salutary  effect  in  checking 
the  impetuous  and  unreflecting,  as  had  also  speeches  by  influ 
ential  men  in  the  Legislature.20 

There  was  great  excitement  among  the  people  of  the  State 
immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature.  Seces 
sion  was  the  one  absorbing  subject  for  conversation  everywhere. 
Candidates  for  the  office  of  deputy  to  a  Southern  Congress  were 
announced,  and  mass  meetings  were  held  in  the  different  Con 
gressional  districts.  The  issue  gave  rise  to  parties:  those  who 
favored  immediate  and  separate  State  action  were  called  Seces 
sionists,  and  those  who  favored  acting  in  conjunction  with  other 
Southern  States  were  called  Coooperationists.  There  was  also  a 
small  and  comparatively  uninfluential  Union  Party,  made  up  of 
men  who  had  formerly  been  Federalists  and  Whigs.21  Later  on 
in  the  campaign  the  latter  joined, with  the  Cooperationists  and 
helped  to  prevent  the  secession  of  the  State  in  the  year  1852. 

Of  the  Secessionists,  Robert  Barnwell  Rhett  was  the  most 
outspoken,22  but  it  appears  that  he  lacked  the  characteristics  of 
a  great  leader  of  men.  He  and  his  followers  sought  to  win  over 
the  people  to  their  cause  by  teaching  the  doctrine  that  if  South 
Carolina  chose  to  leave  the  Union,  the  North  would  allow  her  to 
do  so  quietly.23  Their  efforts  were  ably  seconded  by  Governor 


20.  Claiborne,   Life  of   Quitman,   Vol.   II,   pp.    39-40.     The  debates  of  the  Legis 
lature  during  this  session  are  given  in  the  American  Annual  Cyclopedia  for   1861. 

21.  Capers,  Life  and  Times  of  Memminger,  pp.  200-203.     For  an  account  of  the 
South   Carolina  Federalists  see   article  by  Dr.   U.   B.   Phillips,   in   the   American  His 
torical  Review,  Vol.  XIV,  Nos.  3  and  4. 

22.  Perry's  Reminiscences,  pp.  133-163. 

23.  Trent,  William  Gilmore  Simms,  p.  183. 

106 


Means,  who  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  reviewing  the  militia  all 
over  the  State,  and  making  speeches  in  which  he  asserted  the 
constitutionality  of  separate  State  action.24  William  Gilmore 
Sims,  the  noted  Southern  writer,  vigorously  advocated  secession 
through  the  columns  of  the  Southern  Quarterly  Review,  of  which 
he  became  editor  in  1849. 25  His  was  probably  the  best  known 
name  connected  with  the  movement.  Two  other  men  who  were 
conspicuous  were  Daniel  Elliott  and  Joseph  Huger;  both  voted 
the  Secessionist  ticket  in  1851. 26 

Since  the  issue  presented  to  the  voters  was  separate  or  co 
operative  State  action,  the  distinction  between  the  Cooperation- 
ists  and  Unionists  became  confused  as  the  latter  uniformly  voted 
the  cooperative  ticket.  Of  those  who  were  out  and  out  in  favor 
of  Union,  none  were  more  prominent  than  B.  F.  Perry.  His 
speech,  during  the  legislative  session  of  1850,  was  the  first 
check  that  the  secession  movement  in  South  Carolina  had  re 
ceived  up  to  that  time;  he  declared  his  intention  of  having  it 
printed  and  handed  down  as  a  lagacy  to  his  country  and  his 
children.  After  every  newspaper  in  the  State  had  gone  over  to 
secession,  he  established  a  Union  paper  in  Greenville  county,  the 
Unionist  center  of  the  State,  and  took  charge  of  the  editorial 
department  himself.27  James  Louis  Petigru  played  a  prominent 
part  in  preventing  the  secession  of  South  Carolina  in  opposition 
to  the  compromise  settlement  of  1850.  He  was  pronounced  in 
his  attachment  to  the  Union.28  Several  of  the  former  Nullifers, 
notably  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  and  Andrew  P.  Butler,  were  op 
posed  to  secession  in  1850-1851 ;  Butler  even  took  the  stump  in^N 
favor  of  cooperation.29  Strangest  of  all,  Langdon  Cheves  acted 
with  the  Cooperative  Party,  but  not  on  account  of  love  for  the; 
Union.  He  was  merely  opposed  to  separate  State  action,  desiring, 
a  Southern  convention  in  order  to  unite  the  South  in  favor  of 
secession.  Nevertheless,  he  proved  an  influential  ally  for  those 
who  were  in  favor  of  Union  in  1851.30 


24.  Perry's  Reminiscences,  p.  160. 

25.  Trent,  William  Gilmore  Simms.  Ch.  VI. 

26.  Perry's  Reminiscences,  p.  96. 

27.  Perry,    Biographical    Sketches,    pp.    4-5;    Perry's    Reminiscences,    pp.    13-14. 
The  paper  was  called  The  Southern  Patriot. 

28.  Perry's  Reminiscences,  p.  257;  Grayson,  Petigru,  pp.  108-133. 

29.  Ibid,  pp.  115-116. 

30.  Ibid,  p.  244. 

107 


Any  account  of  the  struggle  to  check  the  secession  movement 
in  South  Carolina  would  be  incomplete  if  it  made  no  mention  of 
the  part  played  by  Bishop  "William  Capers,  of  the  Methodist 
Church.  On  the  7th  of  February,  1851,  while  the  contest  was 
fiercely  raging,  he  published  an  address  to  the  citizens  of  South 
Carolina,  in  the  Charleston  Mercury.  He  had  previously  met 
the  clergymen  of  Charleston,  at  the  suggestion  of  influential 
citizens,  in  order  to  consider  what  they  could  do  to  promote 
peace,  but  the  meeting  had  been  without  results.  Then  he  de 
termined  to  act  alone  in  the  matter.  To  secede  at  once,  or  at  a 
future  time,  alone,  he  told  them,  would  be  secession  from  the 
other  Southern  States  as  well  as  from  the  North;  it  would  be 
equivalent  to  branding  the  rest  of  the  South  as  deficient  in  knowl 
edge,  courage,  or  patriotism.  From  observations  made  during  a 
tour  of  five  of  the  principal  Southern  States,  he  felt  sure  that  a 
Southern  Congress  was  an  impossibility;  three-fourths  of  the 
people  would  oppose  it.  The  reason  for  their  opposition  he 
understood  to  be  the  idea  that  the  acts  of  compromise  were  not 
violations  of  the  Constitution.  It  was  the  opinion  in  South 
Carolina  that  the  acts  referred  to  were  violations  of  the  Consti 
tution,  so  the  question  was  at  most  a  mooted  one,  they  holding 
one  view  while  a  majority  in  the  other  Southern  States  enter 
tained  an  opposite  one.  They  should  review  the  matter,  since  the 
majority  view  was  against  them,  and  consider  well  before  taking 
final  action. 

Consequences,  he  pointed  out,  should  also  be  considered. 
Even  if  no  hostile  army  were  landed  on  their  soil,  the  United 
States  would  oppose  them.  Charleston  would  be  separated  from 
the  rest  of  the  world,  her  commerce  would  perish,  her  merchants 
would  be  ruined,  and  their  rice  and  cotton  would  be  carried  to 
Savannah  for  market.  Even  then,  at  the  time  he  was  writing, 
the  rivalry  of  Savannah  was  not  to  be  condemned.  The  blight 
would  fall,  not  alone  on  Charleston,  but  on  all  the  State;  taxes 
would  be  increased  seven-fold,  and  poverty-stricken  people  would 
leave  their  homes  and  seek  more  favored  parts  if  they  should  be 
too  proud  to  ask  admission  to  the  Union.  Could  patriotism 
demand  such  a  sacrifice  ?  he  asked.  If  they  must  have  a  conven- 


108 


vention,  let  it  be  composed  of  the  wise  and  sober-minded,  not  of 
boys  and  half-made  men.31 

Evidently,  Bishop  Capers'  point  that  in  case  South  Carolina 
seceded  alone  her  trade  and  commerce  would  pass  to  Georgia, 
touched  a  sensitive  spot  in  the  public  mind — particularly  the 
business  mind.  This  probable  outcome  of  separate  State  action 
had  earlier  been  foreseen  by  the  prominent  secessionist,  William 
Gilmore  Simms,  who  wrote  to  Beverly  Tucker  of  Virginia,  No 
vember  27,  1850,  after  the  Georgia  election  when  Howell  Cobb 
had  been  triumphantly  chosen  Governor  on  the  Union  ticket, 
and  called  attention  to  practically  the  same  economic  objections 
that  Bishop  Capers  called  attention  to  in  his  address.  This  ap 
peal  to  Georgia  cupidity,  Simms  stated,  "  filled  as  that  State  is 
with  Yankee  traders,  would  be  fatal  to  her  patriotism.  It 
would  be  irresistable  in  keeping  her  in  her  position."  Georgia" 
must  be  goaded  to  extremities.  Could  she  be  induced  to  move 
with  South  Carolina  in  favor  of  secession,  the  effect  would  be 
conclusive  upon  the  South,  and  once  the  cotton  ports  were  closed 
to  British  commerce  by  reason  of  war,  the  aid  of  that  country 
would  be  given  their  cause.32  This  confidence  in  the  bond  of 
sympathy  with  England,  caused  by  the  commodity  cotton,  is  ; 
thus  seen  to  be  one  of  the  supports  upon  which  disunionists  / 
relied. 

The  election  of  delegates  to  the  State  Convention  resulted  in 
a  decisive  victory  for  the  opponents  of  single  State  action,  114 
Cooperationists  to  54  Secessionists  being  chosen.  The  bulk  of  the 
former  were  returned  from  the  northern  and  back  counties,  the 
southeastern  section  of  the  State  going  almost  entirely  in  favor 
of  secession.33  In  spite  of  all  of  the  former  noise  and  speech- 
making  the  people  took  very  little  interest  in  the  election,  the 
delegates  being  chosen  by  very  small  minorities  of  the  voters  in 
nearly  every  county  in  the  State.34  We  are  inclined  to  the  view 
of  an  Alabama  newspaper,  which  stated,  in  reference  to  the  elec 
tion,  that  even  in  South  Carolina  secession  was  not  much  above 
par,  and  that  the  great  mass  of  people  were  opposed  to  it.35 


31.  Capers,    Life    and    Times    of   Memminger,    pp.    222-224,    reprinted    from    The 
Charleston  Mercury  of  February  7,  1851. 

32.  Trent,  William  Gilmore  Simms,  pp.  180-181. 

33.  Tribune  Almanac,  1852,  p.  43. 

34.  Capers,  Life  and  Times  of  Memminger,  p.  205. 

35.  Macon  Republican,  February  27,  1851. 

109 


The  suggestion  that  a  Southern  Congress  be  held  in  the  city  of 
Montgomery,  Alabama,  did  not  meet  with  favor  in  the  other 
Southern  States  and  the  radicals  of  South  Carolina  received  no 
encouragement  that  some  other  commonwealth  could  be  induced 
to  take  the  leading  step  in  the  movement  for  secession.  Even 
Mississippi,  in  whose  direction  they  had  looked  with  such  high 
hopes,  failed  them.  Governor  Quitman  wrote  that  while  senti 
ment  there  was  undoubtedly  hostile  to  the  compromise  measure, 
there  was  no  evidence  that  this  feeling  had  settled  into  any 
definite  plan  of  action.  The  people  could  not  be  won  over,  con 
sequently,  South  Carolina  would  have  to  look  elsewhere  for  lead 
ership.  He  himself  was  strongly  in  favor  of  th»3  South  Carolina 
program,  and  would  do  what  he  could  to  further  its  working, 
but  in  the  prevailing  state  of  popular  opinion  in  the  South  at 
large,  he  did  not  believe  that  a  Southern  Congress  could  com 
mand  the  unanimous  support  necessary  for  its  successful  out 
come.36 

In  Alabama  a  vigorous  attempt  was  made  by  the  Secession 
ists,  under  the  leadership  of  Yancey,  to  whip  that  State  into  line 
-with  South  Carolina,  but  it  was  unsuccessful.  A  Southern 
Rights  Convention  assembled  at  Montgomery,  February  10,  1851, 
and  passed  resolutions  approving  the  scheme  for  a  Southern 
Congress,  requesting  that  the  Governor  convene  the  Legislature 
for  the  purpose  of  electing  delegates  to  the  same,  and  recom 
mending  that  the  districts  of  the  State  elect  delegates  should  the 
Governor  fail  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  Legislature.37  Early 
the  next  month  the  State  Rights  clubs  gathered  at  the  same  city 
and  undertook  to  organize  a  party  to  prepare  for  the  immediate 
secession  of  the  State,  but  their  number  was  too  few  to  carry 
weight.  Only  eleven  out  of  the  fifty-four  counties  were  repre 
sented,  and  Dallas,  Lowndes,  and  Montgomery,  all  within  easy 
ride  of  the  city,  were  the  only  ones  that  sent  full  delegations. 
The  more  populous  parts  of  the  State,  particularly  the  north  and 
west,  were  unrepresented,  and  it  was  asserted  that  the  whole 
project  was  condemned  by  three-fourths  of  the  people.38 


36.  Quitman  to   Preston,   March   29,    1851,   Claiborne,    Life  of  Quitman,   Vol.   II, 
p.  123. 

37.  Macon  Republican,  February  20,  1851. 

38.  Ibid,  March  6,   1851. 

1 10 


Virginia 's  response  to  the  South  Carolina  recommendation  of 
a  Southern  Congress  was  thoroughly  in  keeping  with  the  role  of 
pacifier  and  mediator  assumed  at  the  time  of  the  nullification  epi 
sode,  and  it  went  a  long  way  toward  calming  the  excited  state  of 
public  feeling  in  South  Carolina,  and  produced  a  reaction  of 
thought  there.39  While  at  one  time  Virginia  herself  had  been 
sufficiently  wrought  up  over  the  action  of  Congress  to  look  for 
relief  from  Northern  aggressions  in  a  Congress  of  the  Southern 
States,40  the  passage  of  the  compromise  settlement  had  worked  a 
change  of  sentiment  that  placed  her  on  the  side  of  Union.  On  March 
29, 1851,  her  Legislature  took  formal  action  on  the  South  Carolina 
invitation  to  send  deputies  to  Montgomery,  by  adopting  a  set 
of  resolutions  condemning  the  whole  project  as  likely  to  destroy 
the  Union,  and  earnestly  and  affectionately  appealing  "to  her 
sister  State  of  South  Carolina  to  desist  from  any  mediated  seces-  x 
sion  upon  her  part. '  '41 

It  was  clear  that  South  Carolina  would  have  to  secede  and 
face  the  consequences  alone  if  she  chose  to  adopt  that  course, 
but  this  fact  did  not  deter  the  more  pronounced  Secessionists. 
The  Southern  Eights  associations  held  a  convention  at  Charles 
ton,  May  5,  1851,  and  adopted  resolutions  affirming  the  right  of 
secession,  and  declaring  that  South  Carolina  should  secede  with 
or  without  the  co-operation  of  the  other  Southern  States.  This 
meeting  formed  itself  into  the  Central  Southern  Rights  Associa 
tion  of  South  Carolina,  and  issued  an  address  to  the  Southern 
Rights  associations  in  the  other  Southern  States.  This  address, 
in  setting  forth  their  position,  stated  that  they  did  not  wish  to 
incur  the  censure  of  friends  by  their  conduct,  and,  consequently, 
would  unite  with  them  in  any  measure  for  effectually  vindicat 
ing  their  common  rights  and  safety  which  they  might  propose; 
but  the  self-abasement  of  submission  appeared  unworthy  of 
men  pretending  to  be  free,  and,  if  left  alone,  they  felt  that  they 
must  vindicate  their  liberty  by  secession.42 

Governor  Means  soon  afterwards  informed  Governor  Quit- 
man  of  Mississippi  that  this  convention  was  a  fair  exponent  of 


39.  See  Memminger's  Address  to  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  January  19.   1860; 
Capers,  Life  and  Times  of  Memminger,  p.  253. 

40.  Acts  of  Virginia,   1848-1849,  pp.  257-258. 

41.  Ibid,  1850-1851,  p.  201. 

42.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  pp.  1-17. 

Ill 


the  opinions  held  in  his  State,  and  that  there  was  not  the  slight 
est  doubt  that  when  the  Legislature  met  it  would  call  the  con 
vention/3  and  when  the  convention  met  the  State  would  secede. 
There  was  a  small  party  opposed  to  separate  State  action  but  he 
felt  sure  that  it  would  go  with  the  majority  at  the  critical 
moment.  The  submissionists  were  so  few  in  number  that  they 
were  unworthy  of  notice.  The  leaders  were  still  anxious  for  co 
operation,  and  also  anxious  for  some  other  State  to  take  the  lead, 
but  recent  events  had  convinced  them  that  South  Carolina  was 
the  only  State  in  which  there  was  sufficient  unanimity  to  com 
mence  the  movement,  consequnetly,  they  would  act  even  if  they 
had  to  stand  alone.44  Later  developments  will  convince  us  that 
Governor  Means  had  not  correctly  gauged  public  opinion  in  his 
State. 

Since  the  delegates  to  the  State  Convention  had  already  been 
elected,  attention  was  concentrated  upon  the  election  of  deputies 
to  a  Southern  Congress,  which  was  to  take  place  upon  the  second 
Monday  in  October,  1851.  The  whole  State  was  stirred.  Anti- 
secession  sentiment  reigned  in  Greenville  county,  where  the 
people  held  a  monster  mass  meeting  at  the  court  house  and 
adopted  Union  resolutions.45  All  but  three  out  of  a  total  of  thirty 
State  newspapers,  it  was  stated,  were  in  favor  of  secession.  The 
commander  at  Fort  Moultrie,  in  Charleston  harbor,  refused  to 
let  the  Moultrie  guards  celebrate  their  anniversary  at  the  usual 
place,  the  battery  of  the  fort,  because  he  could  not  permit  dis 
union  language  like  that  expressed  by  the  orator  at  th  elast 
occasion  of  the  kind.46 

Judge  Memminger  was  active  in  the  interests  of  cooperation 
during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1851,  addressing  conservative 
meetings  at  Greenville,  Pendleton  and  Charleston.  In  his 
Charleston  speech  he  brought  forward  practically  the  same  objec 
tions  to  single  State  action  that  were  urged  by  Bishop  Capers 
during  the  preceding  month  of  February.  Each  of  the  other 
Southern  States,  ran  his  argument,  had  evinced  its  determina 
tion  not  to  leave  the  Union,  and,  in  case  of  war,  would  be  bound 


43.  This  was  the  convention  provided  for  by  the  Legislature  in  1850. 

44.  Means  to  Quitman,  May  12,  1851,  Claiborne,  Life  of  Quitman,  Vol.  II,  p.  133. 

45.  Charleston  Courier,  July  12,  1851. 

46.  Seabrook   to   Quitman,   July    15,    1851,    Claiborne,    Life   of    Quitman,   Vol.    II, 
p.  141. 

112 


to  support  that  Union.  Instead  of  merely  losing  California,  by 
seceding,  South  Carolina  would  abandon  the  whole  property  of 
the  Union  to  the  States  that  remained.  All  of  their  trade  would 
go  to  Savannah,  since  South  Carolina  contributed  but  a  small 
proportion  to  the  import  trade  of  Charleston.47  The  above  gives, 
in  substance,  the  gist  of  his  argument. 

A  series  of  articles,  signed  ' '  Cincinnatus, "  discussed  in  the 
Charleston  Courier,  the  question :  "Is  Secession  a  Practical 
Remedy  for  the  Evils  Under  Which  We  Live?"  and  concluded 
that  such  action  would  increase  rather  than  diminish  them. 
Savannah,  and  the  shrewd  people  of  Georgia,  it  was  pointed  out, 
were  wide  awake  to  take  advantage  of  any  hasty  move  upon  their 
part,  and  the  whole  trade  of  the  West  would  go  to  the  Georgia 
city.  South  Carolina  could  sustain  no  commerce  as  an  independ 
ent  State.  Their  cotton  planters  would  withdraw  where  they 
could  meet  competitors  upon  common  ground,  taxes  would  be 
raised,  etc.,46 — and  in  fact,  the  arguments  are  so  strikingly  simi 
lar  to  those  put  forward  by  Bishop  Capers  that  we  could  almost 
assert  one  and  the  same  person  wrote  them  both.  From  the  fre 
quency  with  which  it  was  used,  we  conclude  that  the  appeal  to 
the  commercial  sense  of  the  people,  was  the  chief  argument  of 
the  Cooperationists. 

The  elections  for  the  selection  of  deputies  to  attend  a  South 
ern  Congress  were  carried  by  the  Cooperationists  al  lover  the 
State.  Before  they  took  place  the  Secessionists  were  very  out 
spoken  and  sure  of  success,  while  the  Union  men,  feeling  some 
delicacy  about  openly  declaring  their  sentiments,  had  remained 
silent  for  the  most  part.  This  had  made  it  extremely  difficult 
to  gauge  public  opinion,49  and  it  accounts  for  the  over-confidence 
expressed  by  Governor  Means  and  others.  The  victory  was  really 
a  trium(plj,  for. the  Unionists,  since  secession  depended  upon  the 
joint  action  of  the  other  States  of  the  South,  and  such  coopera 
tion  was  impossible. 

But  the  radicals  did  not  give  up  the  fight  even  though  the 
election  had  gone  against  them.  At  the  next  session  of  the  Leg- 
islature,  which  was  under  their  control,  they  passed  an  act, 


47.  Capers,  Life  and  Times  of  Memmenger,  pp.  204-222. 

48.  Charleston  Courier,  May  13-June  2,  1851. 

49.  Perry's  Reminiscences,  p.  161. 

«    "3 


December  16,  1851,  calling  the  convention  to  meet  in  April, 
1852.50  The  delegates  assembled  at  Columbia  upon  the  26th  of 
that  month.  One  hundred  and  fifty-eight  were  in  attendance; 
among  them  were  Governor  Means,  ex-Governor  Seabrook,  Maxey 
Gregg,  Langdon  Cheves,  and  B.  F.  Perry.  After  the  demonstra 
tion  of  popular  opinion  at  the  fall  election,  it  seems  that  the 
Secessionists  might  have  foreseen  the  uselessness  of  assembling 
the  convention,  but  it  appears  that  they  had  hopes  of  accom 
plishing  something  in  spite  of  all  signs  to  the  contrary.  In  this 
they  were  disappointed,  for  the  delegates  were,  for  the  most  part, 
men  holding  cooperationist  views.  As  it  was,  the  action  taken 
was  radical  enough,  but,  under  the  circumstances,  it  amounted 
to  submission.  An  ordinance  and  a  resolution  were  adopted  by 
a  vote  of  136  to  19.  The  former  affirmed  the  right  of  secession, 
and  the  latter  declared  that  South  Carolina  forebore  the  exercise 
of  this  manifest  right  of  self-government  from  consideratoins 
of  expediency  only.  Minority  reports  were  submitted  by  B.  F. 
Perry  for  the  Unionists,  and  by  Maxey  Gregg  for  the  Secession 
ists,  who  were  dissatisfied  because  the  majority  action  was  not 
pronounced  enough  to  suit  their  respective  views  on  the  ques 
tion.51 

The  collapse  of  the  secession  movement  in  South  Carolina 
marked  the  end  of  serious  opposition  to  the  compromise  meas 
ures  of  1850.  In  all  of  the  States  where  trouble  was  likely  to 
occur,  the  people  had  come  to  the  rescue  of  the  Union,  and  had 
rendered  the  secession  movement  a  failure. 


50.  Acts  of  South  Carolina,  December  1851,  p.  100. 

51.  Journal  of  the  Convention. 


114 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Addresses  and  Proceedings  of  the  Free  Territory  Convention  of  the 
People  of  Ohio,  Held  at  Columbus,  June  20  and  21,  1848.  Cin 
cinnati,  1848. 

Ames,  Herman  V.,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations:  the  States 
and  the  United  States.  6  Numbers.  Philadelphia,  1900-1906. 

Avery,  J.  W.,  The  History  of  the  State  of  Georgia  from  1850  to  1851, 
Embracing  the  Three  Important  Epochs:  the  Decade  Before  the 
War  of  1861-5;  the  War;  the  Period  of  Reconstruction,  with 
Portraits  of  the  Leading  Public  Men  of  this  Era.  New  York, 
1881. 

Bancroft,  Frederick,  The  Life  of  William  H.  Seward.  2  Vols.  New 
York  and  London,  1900. 

Bartlett,  W.  D.,  The  Life  of  Gen.  Franklin  Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire, 
the  Democratic  Candidate  for  President  of  the  United  States. 
Auburn,  N.  Y.,  1852. 

Benton,  Thomas  Hart,  Thirty  Years '  View,  or,  a  History  of  the  Working 
of  the  American  Government  for  Thirty  Years,  from  1820  to 
1850.  2  Vols.  New  York,  1854. 

Birney,  William,  James  G.  Birney  and  His  Times,  the  Genesis  of  the 
Republican  Party,  with  Some  Account  of  Abolition  Movements 
in  the  South  Before  1848.  New  York,  1890. 

Blaine,  James  G.,  Twenty  Years  of  Congress:  from  Lincoln  to  Garfield, 
with  a  Review  of  the  Events  which  Led  to  the  Political  Revolu 
tion  of  1860.  2  Vols.,  Norwich,  Conn.,  1884-1886. 

Bowditch,  Vincent  Y.,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Henry  Ingersoll  Bow- 
ditch.  2  Vols.  Boston  and  New  York,  1902. 

Brown,  William  Garrott,  The  Lower  South  in  American  History.  New 
York,  1902. 

Calhoun  Correspondence.  Edited  by  J.  F.  Jameson,  and  printed  in  the 
Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for  1899,  Vol. 
II.  Washington,  1901. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  Works,  Edited  by  Richard  K.  Cralle,  6  Vols.  New 
York,  1888. 

Capers,  Henry  D.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  C.  G.  Memminger.     Richmond, 

Va.,  1893. 

Cass  and  Taylor  on  the  Slavery  Question.    Boston,  1848. 
Chadwick,  John  White,  Theodore  Parker,  Preacher  and  Reformer.    Bos 
ton  and  New  York,  1900. 

Claiborne,  J.  F.  H.,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  John  A.  Quitman, 
Major-General,  U.  S.  A.,  and  Governor  of  Mississippi.  2  Vols. 
New  York,  1860. 


Claiborne,  John  Herbert,  Seventy-five  Years  in  Old  Virginia,  with  some 
account  of  the  author  and  some  history  of  the  people  amongst 
whom  his  lot  was  cast — their  character,  their  condition,  and 
their  conduct  before  the  war,  during  the  war,  and  after  the 
war.  New  York  and  Washington,  1904. 

Coleman,  Mrs.  Chapman,  editor,  The  Life  of  John  J.  Crittenden,  with 
selections  from  his  correspondence  and  speeches.  2  Vols. 
Philadelphia,  1873. 

Henry  Clay,  Life,  Correspondence  and  Speeches,  Edited  by  Calvin  Col- 
ton.  6  Vols.  New  York,  1857. 

The  same  republished  in  seven  volumes  at  New  York,  in  1897, 
with  an  introduction  by  Thomas  B.  Eeed.  and  a  "History  of 
Tariff  Legislation  from  1812  to  1896,"  by  William  McKinley. 

Cleveland,  Henry,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  in  Public  and  Private,  with 
Letters  and  Speeches,  Before,  During,  and  Since  the  War. 
Philadelphia,  Eichmond,  Atlanta,  Cincinnati,  St.  Louis,  Chicago, 
New  Orleans,  1866. 

Colton,  Calvin,  The  Last  Seven  Years  of  Henry  Clay.    New  York,  1856. 

Curtis,  George  Ticknor,  Life  of  Daniel  Webster.  2  Vols.  New  York, 
1870. 

Curtis,  George  Ticknor,  Life  of  James  Buchanan,  Fifteenth  President  of 
the  United  States.  2  Vols.  New  York,  ]  883. 

Davis,  Keuben,  Kecollections  of  Mississippi  and  Mississippians.  Boston 
and  New  York,  1889. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  The  Else  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government.  2 
Vols.  New  York,  1881. 

De  Bow's  Eeview  of  the  Southern  and  Western  States,  edited  by  J.  D. 
B.  De  Bow.  Vols.  1-8  called  "Commercial  Eeview."  33  Vols. 
New  Orleans  and  Washington,  1847-1862. 

Same,  "After  the  War  Series."  9  Vols.  Nashville,  New  Or 
leans,  New  York,  1866-1870. 

Dodd,  William  E.,  Jefferson  Davis.     Philadelphia. 

Du  Bose,  J.  W.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  W.  L.  Yancey.  Birmingham, 
Ala.,  1892. 

Fillmore  Papers.  Printed  in  volumes  10  and  11  of  the  Publications  of 
the  Buffalo  Historical  Society.  Buffalo,  1907. 

Foote,  Henry  S.,  Casket  of  Eeminiscences.     Washington,  1874. 

Foote,  Henry  S.,  The  Bench  and  Bar  of  the  South  and  Southwest.  St. 
Louis,  1876. 

Ford,  Worthington  Chauncey,  The  Campaign  of  1844.  Published  in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Vol.  22,  Pt.  1. 
Worcester,  Mass.,  1909. 

Fowler,  William  Chauncey,  The  Sectional  Controversy,  or,  Passages  in 
the  Political  History  of  the  United  States,  Including  the  Causes 
of  the  War  Between  the  Sections,  with  Certain  Eesults.  New 
York,  1868. 

116 


Garner,  James  Wilford,  The  First  Struggle  Over  Secession  in  Missis 
sippi.  Printed  in  the  Publications  of  the  Mississippi  Historical 
Society,  Vol.  4.  Oxford,  Miss.,  1901. 

Garrison,  George  Pierce,  Westward  Extension,  1841-1850.  New  York 
and  London,  1906. 

Garrison,  George  Pierce,  Texas,  A  Contest  of  Civilization.  Boston  and 
New  York,  1903. 

Giddings,  Joshua  Eeed,  History  of  the  Kebellion:  Its  Authors  and 
Causes.  New  York,  1864. 

Grayson,  William,  J.,  James  Louis  Petigru,  A  Biographical  Sketch.  New 
York,  1866. 

Greeley,  Horace,  A  History  of  the  Struggle  for  Slavery  Extension  or 
Eestriction  in  the  United  States,  from  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  to  the  Present  Day.  Mainly  Compiled  and  Condensed 
from  the  Journals  of  Congress  and  Other  Official  Records,  and 
Showing  the  Vote  by  Yeas  and  Nays  on  the  Most  Important 
Divisions  in  Either  House.  New  York,  1856. 

Greeley,  Horace,  The  American  Conflict.  2  Vols.  Hartford,  Conn., 
1864-1867. 

Greeley,  Horace,  Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life.    New  York,  1868. 

Hammond,  James  H.,  An  Address  Delivered  Before  the  South  Carolina 
Institute,  at  its  First  Annual  Fair,  on  the  20th  November,  1849. 

Harden,   Edward  J.,   The   Life   of   George   M.   Troup.     Savannah,   1859. 

Higginson,  Thomas  Wentworth,  Cheerful  Yesterdays.  Boston  and  New 
York,  1898. 

Hilliard,  Henry  W.,  Politics  and  Pen  Pictures  at  Home  and  Abroad. 
New  York  and  London,  1892. 

Hilliard,  Henry  W.,  Speeches  and  Addresses.     New  York,  1855. 

Hittell,  Theodore  Henry,  History  of  California.  2  Vols.  San  Francisco, 
1885. 

Hodgson,  Joseph,  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy;  or,  the  Times  of 
Troup,  Quitman,  and  Yancey.  Mobile,  1876. 

Hoist.  H.  von,  Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  United  States. 
8  Vols.  Chicago,  1877-1892. 

Hoist,  H.  von,  John  C.  Calhoun.    Boston,  1892. 

Howard,  Oliver  Otis,  General  Taylor.     New  York,  1892. 

Hunt,  Gaillard,  John  C.  Calhoun.     Philadelphia. 

Hunter,  Martha  T.,  A  Memoir  of  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  with  an  Address 
on  His  Life  by  Col.  L.  Quinton  Washington.  Washington,  1903. 

Ingle,  Edward,  Southern  Sidelights,  A  Picture  of  Social  and  Economic 
Life  in  the  South  a  Generation  Before  the  War.  New  York 
and  Boston. 

Ingraham,  J.  H.,  editor,  The  Sunny  South;  or,  The  Southerner  at  Home, 
Embracing  Five  Years  Experience  of  a  Northern  Governess  in 
the  Land  of  the  Sugar  and  the  Cotton.  Philadelphia,  1860. 

Jay,  William,  A.  Review  of  the  Causes  and  Consequences  of  the  Mexican 
War.  Boston,  1849. 

117 


Jefferson  Davis,  ex-President  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America.  A 
Memoir  by  His  Wife.  2  Vols.  New  York,  1891. 

John  Sherman's  Kecollections  of  Forty  Years  in  the  House,  Senate  and 
Cabinet.  An  Autobiography.  2  Vols.  Chicago,  London,  New 
York,  Berlin,  1895. 

Johnson,  Eichard  Malcolm;  and  Brown,  William  Hand,  Life  of  Alexander 
H.  Stephens.  Kevised  edition.  Philadelphia,  1884. 

Johnson,  Oliver,  William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  His  Times;  or  Sketches  of 
the  Anti-Slavery  Movement  in  America,  and  of  the  Man  Who 
Was  Its  Founder  and  Moral  Leader.  Boston,  1880. 

Jones,  Charles  Colcock,  Life  and  Services  of  ex-Governor  Charles  Jones 
Jenkins.  A  Memorial  Address.*  Atlanta,  1884. 

Journal  of  the  State  Convention  of  South  Carolina,  Together  with  the 
Eesolution  and  Ordinance.  Columbia,  1852. 

Journal  of  the  State  Convention,  Held  at  Milledgeville,  in  December, 
1850.  Milledgeville,  1850. 

Keyes,  E.  D.,  Fifty  Years'  Observation  of  Men  and  Events.  New  York, 
1884. 

Knight,  Landon,  The  Eeal  Jefferson  Davis.  Published  in  the  ' '  Pilgrim, ' ' 
Battle  Creek,  Michigan,  of  October,  1903 — March,  1904. 

Lester,  C.  Edwards,  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Charles  Sumner.  New 
York,  1874. 

Life  and  Works  of  Horace  Mann.    By  His  Wife.     5  Vols.     Boston,  1891. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  Daniel  Webster.    Boston  ,1883. 

Lynch,  James  D.,  The  Bench  and  Bar  of  Mississippi.     New  York,  1881. 

McDougal,  H.  C.,  A  Decade  of  Missouri  Politics,  1860-1870.  From  a  Re 
publican  Viewpoint.  Printed  in  the  Missouri  Historical  Eeview, 
Vol.  3.  Columbia,  1909. 

McElroy,  Eobert  McNutt,  Kentucky  in  the  Nation 's  History.  New 
York,  1909. 

McLaughlin,  Andrew  C.,  Lewis  Cass.    Boston  and  New  York,  1891. 

Meigs,  William  M.,  The  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton.  Philadelphia  and 
London,  1904. 

Memoir  of  William  Ellery  Channing,  with  Extracts  from  His  Corre 
spondence  and  Manuscripts.  3  Vols.  Boston,  1854. 

Memoirs  of  General  William  T.  Sherman.  By  Himself.  2  Vols.  New 
York,  1875. 

Merriam,  George  S.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Samuel  Bowles.  2  Vols. 
New  York,  1885. 

Mumford,  Beverley  B.,  Virginia's  Attitude  Towards  Slavery  and  Seces 
sion.  New  York,  London,  Bombay,  Calcutta,  1909. 

Newspapers,  1847-1852. 

ALABAMA. 
The  Macon  Eepublican. 
The  Southern  Advocate. 

NEW  YOEK. 
The  New  York  Tribune. 

118 


SOUTH  CAROLINA. 
The  Charleston  Mercury. 
The  Charleston  Courier. 
The  Greenville  Mountaineer. 
The  Palmetto  Flag. 

TENNESSEE. 
The  Nashville  American. 
The  Nashville  Banner. 
The  Nashville  Gazette. 
The  Nashville  Union. 
The  Republican  Banner  and  Nashville  Whig. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

Niles    Weekly    Register.       75    Vols.      Baltimore,    Washington, 
Philadelphia,     1811-1849.       The    later    numbers    were    called 
' '  Niles  National  Register. ' ' 
The  National  Intelligencer. 
The  Southern  Press. 

Oliver  Dyer's  Phonographic  Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  National 
Free  Soil   Convention  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  9th   and   10th, 
1848.     Buffalo,  New  York,  and  Philadelphia. 

O'Neall,  John  Bolton,  Biographical  Sketches  of  the  Bench  and  Bar  of 
South  Carolina;  to  which  is  added  the  Original  Free  Bill  of 
1791,  with  the  Signatures  in  Fac-Simile,  the  Rolls  of  Attorneys 
Admitted  to  Practice,  from  the  Records  at  Charleston  and 
Columbia,  etc.,  etc.  2  Vols.  Charleston,  1859. 

Perry,  B.  F.,  Biographical  Sketches  of  Eminent  American  Statesmen, 
with  Speeches,  Addresses  and  Letters.  Introductory  by  Senator 
Wade  Hampton.  Prefaced  by  an  Outline  of  the  Author's  Life. 
Philadelphia,  1887. 

Petition  of  the  Central  Southern  Rights  Association  of  Virginia,  and 
Accompanying  Documents.  (No  place  of  publication  men-* 
tioned),  1851. 

Phelan,  James,  History  of  Tennessee,  the  Making  of  a  State.  Boston 
and  New  York,  1888. 

Phillips,  Ulrich  Bonnell,  Georgia  and  States  Rights.  Published  in 
Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for  1901, 
Vol.  2.  Washington  ,1902. 

Pierce,  Edward  L.,  Memoirs  and  Letters  of  Charles  Sumner.  4  Vols. 
Boston,  1877-1894. 

Poore,  Ben  Perley,  Perley's  Reminiscences  of  Sixty  Years  in  the  Na 
tional  Metropolis.  Illustrating  the  Wit,  Humor,  Genius,  Eccen 
tricities,  Jealousies,  Ambitions,  Intrigues  of  the  Brilliant 
Statesmen,  Ladies,  Officers,  Diplomats,  Lobbyists,  and  other 
Noted  Celebrities  of  the  World  that  Gather  at  the  Center  of 
the  Nation;  describing  imposing  Inauguration  Ceremonies,  Gala 
Day  Festivities,  Army  Reviews,  etc.,  etc.,  etc.  2  Vols.  Phila 
delphia,  1886. 

119 


Proceedings  of  the  Great  Southern  Cooperation  and  Anti-Secession  Meet 
ing.  Held  in  Charleston,  September  23,  1851.  Charleston,  1851. 

Proceedings  of  the  Southern  Rights  Convention,  Assembled  at  Mont 
gomery,  March  4,  1852. 

Proceedings  of  the  Meeting  of  Delegates  from  the  Southern  Eights  As 
sociation  of  South  Carolina.  Held  at  Charleston,  May,  1851. 
Columbia,  1851. 

Ray,  P.  Oman,  The  Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Its  Origin  and 
Authorship.  Cleveland,  1909. 

Ray,  P.  O.,  The  Retirement  of  Thomas  H.  Benton  from  the  Senate  and  Its 
Significance.  Printed  in  Vol.  2  of  the  Missouri  Historical  Re 
view.  Columbia,  1908. 

Reed,  John  C.,  The  Brother's  War.     Boston,  1905. 

Reminiscences  of  Public  Men.  By  ex-Governor  B.  F.  Perry.  Prefaced 
by  a  Life  of  the  Author  by  Hext  M.  Perry,  M.  D.  Philadelphia, 
1883. 

Resolutions,  Addresses  and  Journal  of  the  Nashville  Convention.  Held 
at  Nashville,  Tennessee,  June  3rd,  to  12th,  Inclusive,  in  the  year 
1850.  Nashville,  1850. 

Rhodes,  James  Ford,  History  of  the  United  States  from  the  Compromise 
of  1850.  7  Vols.  New  York,  1893-1906. 

Richardson,  James  D.,  A  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers  of  the 
Presidents,  1789-1897.  Washington,  1896-1899. 

Rogers,  Joseph  M.,  Thomas  H.  Benton.     Philadelphia. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton.  Boston  and  New 
York,  1887. 

Sargent,  Nathan,  Public  Men  and  Events  from  the  Commencement  of 
Mr.  Monroe's  Administration,  in  1817,  to  the  close  oj^AHj^l- 
more's  Administration,  in  1853.  J  Yols.  Phihulrhihia,  ls7$..». 

Schurz,  Carl,  Life  of  Henry  Clay.     2  Vols.     Boston  :m<l   .\Yw  York.   ls<>2. 

Shaler,  N.  C.,  Kentucky,  a  Pioneer  Commonwealth.    Boston,B 

Sheehan,  James  W.,  The  Life  of  Stephen  A.  Doughs.     New  fork,  1SOO. 

Shephard,  Edward  M.,  Martin  Van  Buren.    Boston  and  New  ^fl^Rs. 

Smith,  Theodore  Clarke,  Parties  and  Slavery,  1850-1859.  New  York  and 
London,  1906. 

Smith,  W.  L.  G.,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Lewis  Cass.    New  York,  1856. 

Smith,  Whiteford,  A  Sermon  Delivered  Before  the  General  Assembly  of 
South  Carolina,  on  Friday,  December  6,  1850,  being  a  day  of 
fasting,  humiliation,  and  prayer.  Columbia,  1S">0. 

Smith,  William  R.,  Reminiscences  of  a  Long  Life;  Historical,  Political, 
Personal,  and  Literary.  Washington. 

Smith,  William,  The  History  and  Debates  of  the  Convention  of  the 
People  of  Alabama,  begun  and  held  in  the  City  of  Montgomery, 
on  the  seventh  day  of  January,  1861,  in  which  is  preserved  the 
speeches  of  the  secret  sessions,  and  many  valuable  State  papers. 
Montgomery,  Tuscaloosa,  and  Atlanta,  1861. 

120 


Stanwood,  Edward,  A  History  of  the  Presidency.  Boston  and  New 
York,  1906. 

State  Laws.  Published  under  such  a  variety  of  names  that  classifica 
tion  is  difficult. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  A  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War  Between 
the  States;  its  causes,  character,  conduct  and  results  presented 
in  a  series  of  colloquies  at  Liberty  Hall.  2  Vols.  Philadelphia, 
1868-1870. 

Stovall,  Pleasant  A.,  Eobert  Toombs,  Statesman,  Speaker,  Soldier,  Sage, 
his  career  in  Congress  and  on  the  hustings — his  work  in  the 
courts — his  record  with  the  army — his  life  at  home.  New  York, 
1892. 

The  Gulf  States  Historical  Magazine,  edited  by  Thomas  M.  Owen. 
Montgomery,  Ala.,  1902. — 

The  Life  of  Thurlow  Weed.  Volume  1,  Autobiography  of  Thurlow 
Weed,  edited  by  Harriet  A.  Weed;  Volume  2,  Memoir  of  T.hur- 
low  Weed,  by  Thurlow  Weed  Barnes.  Boston,  1884. 

The  Manuscript  Correspondence  of  Eobert  Toombs,  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  and  Howell  Cobb.  Now  published  in  the  Annual 
Keport  of  the  American  Historical  Associaton,  1911,  Vol.  2. 
Edited  by  U.  B.  Phillips. 

The  Southern  Quarterly  Review.  30  Vols.  New  Orleans  and  Charles 
ton,  1842-1857. 

The  Union,  Past  and  Future:  how  it  works,  and  how  to  save  it,  by  a 
citizen  of  Virginia.  First  published  at  Washington,  and  re- 
published  in  Charleston,  by  the  Southern  Rights  Associaton. 
1850. 

Thomas,  J.  P.,  editor,  The  Carolina  Tribute  to  Calhoun.     Columbia,  1857. 

Trent,  William  P.,  William  Gilmore  Sims.    Boston  and  New  York.  1892. 

Trescott,  William  H.,  The  Position  and  Course  of  the  South.     Charleston, 

1850. 

Tuckerman,  Bayard,  William  Jay  and  the  Constitutional  Movement  for 
the  Abolition  of  Slavery,  with  a  preface  by  John  Jay.  New 
York,  1893. 

Turner,  Frederick  Jackson,  Rise  of  the  New  West,  1819-1829.  New  York 
and  London,  1906. 

Turner,  Frederick  Jackson,  The  Old  West.  Published  in  the  Proceed 
ings  of  the  State  Historical  Society  of  Wisconsin  for  1908. 

Tyler,  Lyon  G.,  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers.  3  Vols.  Richmond, 
1884-1896. 

United  States — 

The  Congressional  Globe. 

House  and  Senate  Documents,  1847-1852. 

House  and  Senate  Journals,  1847-1852. 

The  Statutes  at  Large  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

121 


Waddell,  James  D.,  editor,  Biographical  Sketch  of  Linton  Stephens,  Con 
taining  a  Selection  of  His  Letters,  Speeches,  State  Papers,  etc. 
Atlanta,  1877. 

Warden,  Kobert  B.,  An  Account  of  the  Private  Life  and  Public  Services 
of  Salmon  Portland  Chase.  Cincinnati,  1874.  . 

Willey,  Samuel  H.,  The  Transition  Period  of  California,  from  a  province 
of  Mexico  in  1846,  to  a  State  of  the  American  Union  in  1850. 
San  Francisco,  1901. 

William  Lloyd  Garrison,  1805-1879.  The  Story  of  his  life  told  by  his 
children.  4  Vols.  New  York,  1889. 

Wilson,  Henry,  History  of  the  Eise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power.  3  Vols. 
Boston,  1872-1877. 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  Seven  Decades  of  the  Union.  The  humanities  and  ma 
terialism,  illustrated  by  a  memoir  of  John  Tyler,  with  reminis 
cences  of  some  of  his  great  contemporaries.  The  transition 
state  of  this  nation — its  dangers  and  their  remedies.  Eichmond, 
1881. 

Works  of  Hubert  Howe  Bancroft.    33  Vols.     San  Francisco,  1874-1890. 

Yancey,  W.  L.,  An  Address  to  the  People  of  Alabama.  Montgomery, 
1848. 


122 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


23Apr'60RT 

'• 


•  ••••• 


% 


..  ~  •  -^.'^ 


«3L 


-t± 


SEC'DLD 


91 '64 -4PM 


TT\OIA    cn      x«»cn 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


28082 


